Hobby Lobby ruling, right-wing judges just said I don't have to pay for warfare!

[kpete]

I do not WANT to pay taxes that goes toward supporting the U.S. military.



Scalia’s major screw-up: How SCOTUS just gave liberals a huge gift
With an otherwise awful Hobby Lobby ruling, right-wing judges just said I don't have to pay for warfare!

The upshot of the ruling is that Hobby Lobby and other businesses with conservative religious owners do not need to pay for what the Affordable Care Act mandates as full coverage for family planning. The public interest in affordable and accessible healthcare is not compelling enough to override the private belief that contraceptive methods including (but apparently not limited to) the IUD and the morning-after pill are murder. Well, I’m a pacifist, and I say that warfare is murder, and I don’t want to pay for it; and in recent decades the public interest in my paying for it hardly looks compelling.


....


I look forward with mirth to the Supreme Court’s deliberations on whether the portion of military spending funded by the taxes of religious pacifists represents a compelling public interest. Historians of our era — Justice Scalia is especially keen to consult history when backing up his rulings — must already be revving up to declare that it would have benefited our nation hugely had there not been as many military resources available for our government to splash out with. Even more to Scalia’s taste as evidence, a delegate at the 1787 Constitutional Convention declared that a standing army was like an erect penis, “a dangerous temptation to foreign adventure.” Crude analogy, but it’s turned out to be no joke.

I foretell many blessings for our beloved homeland from the coming new dispensation. The arrangements for going to war will be more like a female Hobby Lobby employee’s having to shift for herself if her circumstances, her doctor and her conscience argue for an IUD. (The court has now backed up Wheaton College’s refusal even to certify in a letter its objection to paying for contraceptive coverage, though Wheaton refuses for the very reason that the federal government intended such certification to allow straightforward alternative access to birth control. The court seems to be establishing the right of a religious employer to pursue an employee outside the place of employment and make it as hard as possible for her to obtain standard healthcare he doesn’t want her to have.)


MORE:
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/14/scalias_major_screw_up_how_scotus_just_gave_liberals_a_huge_gift/

[polichick]

1. We can all be Quakers!

[vi5]

2. No they didn't.

In fact they explicitly stated in the ruling that it only applies to religions that have an issue with contraception and nothing else.

They're not even trying to hide it under the guise of constructionism or the constitution or any of it.

[TBF]

3. Now if you were a corporation you might have an argument -

but clearly this Supreme Court does not care about individual citizens unless they are corporations. Then they get special treatment such as rulings just for themselves.

[Atman]

4. Fat Toney, Lyin' Alito & The Crew would say you have a vested interested in defending America.

They just don't think anyone has a vested interested in defending FEMALE Americans.

The odd thing is, you can't really set a precedent and then say "But this isn't a precedent because it only applies to our friends. This will certainly be interesting moving forward. I want a tax refund from Halliburton for electrocuting, poisoning and maiming so many for profit.

[Octafish]

5. Kick for an article that should be on the front page of The New York Times.

Mille grazie, kpete!