5-4 Decision: Closely Held For-Profit Corporations Have Religious Freedom

[Brainonska511]

From SCOTUSBlog:

RFRA applies to regulations that govern the activities of closely held for-profit corporations like Conestoga, HL and Mardel.

The Court says that the government has failed to show that the mandate is the least restrictive means of advancing its interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to birth control.

Here is a further attempt at qualification: This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs.

Here is more qualification: It does not provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.

Pretty ridiculous if you ask me. Religion is an innately human quality and the purpose of setting up a corporation is the make it a distinct entity from its owners.

I'll post the opinion link when it's up.

Edit:

Looks like they are expanding on corporate personhood:

To be clear: the Court holds that corporations (including for-profit corporations) are "persons" for purposes of RFRA. The additional question was whether corporations can have a religious "belief" within the meaning of RFRA. On that question, the Court limits its holding to closely held corporations, leaving for another day whether larger, publicly traded corporations have religious beliefs.

I can't wait to have Hobby Lobby pray by my side in a church...


Edit 2:
Link to opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

 

[fskimospy]

From SCOTUSBlog:

Pretty ridiculous if you ask me. Religion is an innately human quality and the purpose of setting up a corporation is the make it a distinct entity from its owners.

I'll post the opinion link when it's up.

Not a surprising ruling, I think. While it's "surprising" from a legal perspective, in that I find it highly likely the ruling will be incoherent and is likely strongly breaking from prior precedent, but from a political perspective it was pretty obvious that the conservative justices were looking for a way to appease the right wing and "rule against Obamacare" in some way.

 

[waggy]

I think its surprising. didn't expect that.

 

[dank69]

Not a surprising ruling, I think. While it's "surprising" from a legal perspective, in that I find it highly likely the ruling will be incoherent and is likely strongly breaking from prior precedent, but from a political perspective it was pretty obvious that the conservative justices were looking for a way to appease the right wing and "rule against Obamacare" in some way.

What a righteous way to dispense justice.

 

[Thebobo]

MT

 

[sportage]

This is one of those rulings where it sounds good to some off the bat, but in the end be careful what you wish for.
Now, it would become very easy for boycotting of companies that rule from the bible.
Sounds good to run your company by the scripture, but most people are not in that boat.
Good employees will leave. Bad religious fundie employees will stay.
Shoppers will boil down to bible thumpers, and everyone else will shop somewhere other than hobby lobby.
This changes things big time.
Big time where NOW we not only know without question the extent of an individual business vs employee, but also a businesses total disregard toward that employee.
This ruling IS GOOD because now the lines are clearly drawn.
So much for hobby lobby and their financial future.
Most people were NEVER aware of this issue.
Not the general public, not the average hobby lobby shopper.
BUT... now they know.
And the public WILL have the last say on the matter.
And it will not be good for hobby lobby's future.
Be careful for what you wish for.....

 

[fskimospy]

This is one of those rulings where it sounds good to some off the bat, but in the end be careful what you wish for.
Now, it would become very easy for boycotting of companies that rule from the bible.
Sounds good to run your company by the scripture, but the people are not in that boat.
Good employees will leave. Bad religious fundie employees will stay.
Shoppers will boil down to bible thumpers, and everyone else will shop somewhere other than hobby lobby.
This changes things big time.
Big time where NOW we not only know without question the extent of an individual business vs employee, but also a businesses total disregard toward that employee.
This ruling IS GOOD because not the lines are clearly drawn.
So much for hobby lobby and their financial future.
Most people never were aware of the issue. Not the general public, not the shopper.
BUT... now they do. And the public WILL have the last say on the matter.
Be careful for what you wish for.....

At least SCOTUS basically came straight out and said that businesses who tried to use this ruling as a way to discriminate against gay people, etc (like the wedding cake people) would find no protection form this.

 

[nehalem256]

To be clear: the Court holds that corporations (including for-profit corporations) are "persons" for purposes of RFRA. The additional question was whether corporations can have a religious "belief" within the meaning of RFRA. On that question, the Court limits its holding to closely held corporations, leaving for another day whether larger, publicly traded corporations have religious beliefs.

Which makes complete sense. A corporation held by a few private owners is essentially a extension of said owners.

I wonder how this ruling would impact small private bakeshops that object to providing cakes to same-sex weddings?

 

[Jaskalas]

Where is that other topic from when Roberts betrayed us and called it a tax...

Seems that everyone can agree (when ruled against) that the Supreme Court is a political organization - nullifying the founder's intent. Quite frankly it is a delusion amidst today's interconnected world that ANYONE is going to be impartial.

 

[Brainonska511]

Which makes complete sense. A corporation held by a few private owners is essentially a extension of said owners.

I wonder how this ruling would impact small private bakeshops that object to providing cakes to same-sex weddings?

If this paraphrasing of Alito's opinion is correct:

Paraphrasing more from Justice Alito's opinion: The dissent is concerned about the possibility of disputes among the owners of a privately held corporation about this coverage. State corporate law provides a ready means for resolving any conflicts by (for example) dictating how a corporation can establish its governing structure, and courts will turn to that structure and the underlying state law in resolving such disputes.

They would look to state law, which in those bakery cases, would require that the owner be non-discriminating based on sexual orientation. So you may be able to get your Man-and-Toaster topper after all.

 

[fskimospy]

Which makes complete sense. A corporation held by a few private owners is essentially a extension of said owners.

I wonder how this ruling would impact small private bakeshops that object to providing cakes to same-sex weddings?

According to SCOTUSBLOG:

The Court makes clear that the government can provide coverage to the female employees. And it strongly suggests it would reject broad religious claims to, for example, discriminate against gay employees.

So it looks like the small private bakeshops are out of luck. Still no discriminating allowed.

 

[SunnyD]

Corporations are people...

 

[fskimospy]

Where is that other topic from when Roberts betrayed us and called it a tax...

Seems that everyone can agree (when ruled against) that the Supreme Court is a political organization - nullifying the founder's intent. Quite frankly it is a delusion amidst today's interconnected world that ANYONE is going to be impartial.

I thought Roberts' ruling in the original case was stupid. The mandate was clearly legal on its own merits, regardless of whether or not it was a 'tax'. The original ACA case was also a political move by Roberts in order to effectively trade the ACA itself for an overall more conservative reading of the commerce clause.

SCOTUS has been a political organization for quite a long time. I mean we all still remember Bush v. Gore, right?

 

[nehalem256]

According to SCOTUSBLOG:


So it looks like the small private bakeshops are out of luck. Still no discriminating allowed.

I see you have reading issues.

The Court makes clear that the government can provide coverage to the female employees. And it strongly suggests it would reject broad religious claims to, for example, discriminate against gay employees

 

[Wreckem]

Hobby Lobby wins in that they don't have to pay/provide contraceptive coverage. They lose because under ACA regs their employees will still get contraceptive coverage. Yah for taxpayers continuing to subsidize corporations. That said this case has profound effects on others. Specifically non profits that refuse to certify they meet the accommodation standards because they don't want their employees to have birth control coverage just got fucked by this ruling. They lose. They don't have to provide it but they cannot prevent coverage.

 

[fskimospy]

From the opinion:

(3) This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and
should not be understood to hold that all insurance coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.

That to me sounds like SCOTUS would likely uphold sanctions on businesses engaging illegal discrimination against gay people even if they claimed it was on religious grounds. At least there's one thing about this decision that's rational.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Another shit ruling from this court that favors businesses over people. Even if you hate Obama care this ruling is garbage and will cause problems. Fortunately its a very narrow ruling.
All the more reason we should have a single payer health care system.

 

[nehalem256]

Hobby Lobby wins in that they don't have to pay/provide contraceptive coverage. They lose because under ACA regs their employees will still get contraceptive coverage. Yah for taxpayers continuing to subsidize corporations. Non profits that refuse to certify they meet the accommodation standards because they don't want their employees to have birth control coverage just got fucked by this ruling.

Corporations don't use birth control.

I think you mean: "Yeah for men continuing to subsidize women".

Which, was of course the entire point of the contraception mandate. Force single men to pay for single women's birth control. Liberals were just able to hide this fact by forcing corporations to be their middle men.

 

[Wreckem]

I see you have reading issues.

Their qualifiers are all non binding dicta. The majority can say whatever it wants in the way of qualifiers. They aren't binding and we will see other cases. Their opinion opens a can of worms.

 

[fskimospy]

I see you have reading issues.

I see you have reading issues. The case was about employment law, so the statement was about employment law. The fact that they do not view the RFRA as adequate to create a religious exemption that allows businesses to illegally discriminate against gay employees, it is reasonable to assume that they would find the RFRA inadequate to allow businesses to illegally discriminate against gay customers.

 

[sportage]

Oh... the women. Did I mention the women? oy vey
If hobby lobby thought the wrath of God was something to fear... well... oy vey
Just wait until the women boycott this establishment that sells crafts and knacks.
There is such a thing as shooting one in ones own foot.
And THIS is it, hobby lobby.
Is also suspect this will strengthen the progressive left come the november elections.
I do expect a hard strong backlash from women and women rights.
Yes... even the likes of republican women such as Barbara Bush.
This boils down to women's rights AND abortion rights.
Wait... you will see.

 

[nehalem256]

From the opinion:

That to me sounds like SCOTUS would likely uphold sanctions on businesses engaging illegal discrimination against gay people even if they claimed it was on religious grounds. At least there's one thing about this decision that's rational.

I fail to see on what grounds you could rationally say that:

(1) Compelling a corporation to provide birth control is unconstitutional.

(2) Compelling a corporation to provide a same-sex wedding cake is constitutional.

Perhaps you are just pointing out that this is yet another case of the Supreme Court being grossly inconsistent?

 

[Wreckem]

Another shit ruling from this court that favors businesses over people. Even if you hate Obama care this ruling is garbage and will cause problems. Fortunately its a very narrow ruling.
All the more reason we should have a single payer health care system.

It's only narrow because it only applies to closely held businesses.

 

[fskimospy]

I fail to see on what grounds you could rationally say that:

(1) Compelling a corporation to provide birth control is unconstitutional.

(2) Compelling a corporation to provide a same-sex wedding cake is constitutional.

Perhaps you are just pointing out that this is yet another case of the Supreme Court being grossly inconsistent?

No, this is just a case of you desperately attempting to find a way to preserve your opinion against contrary evidence.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Ah - so the corporation has to abide by the bible and be respected as so.

OK, who will ensure they follow the bible and do not steal, cheat or lie while conducting business?