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

[nehalem256]

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.

From your own quote:

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.

I would think that only discriminating against same-sex marriage cakes, but still providing bday cakes, etc to gay clients would be only a narrow claim.

 

[Brainonska511]

So much for following precedent and original intent of the Constition from the 'originalists'...

As pointed out by Ginsberg in her dissent:

RFRA’s compelling interest test, as noted, see supra, at 8, applies to government actions that “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion.” 42 U. S. C. §2000bb– 1(a) (emphasis added). This reference, the Court submits, incorporates the definition of “person” found in the Dictionary Act, 1 U. S. C. §1, which extends to “corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.” See ante, at 19–20. The Dictionary Act’s definition, however, controls only where “context” does not “indicat[e] otherwise.” §1.Here, context does so indicate. RFRA speaks of “a person’s exercise of religion.” 42 U. S. C. §2000bb–1(a) (emphasis added). See also §§2000bb–2(4), 2000cc–5(7)(a).12 Whether a corporation qualifies as a “person” capable of exercis- ing religion is an inquiry one cannot answer without reference to the “full body” of pre-Smith “free-exercise caselaw.” Gilardi, 733 F. 3d, at 1212. There is in that case law no support for the notion that free exercise rights pertain to for-profit corporations.
....

The absence of such precedent is just what one would expect, for the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities.

(bolding is mine)

 

[Wreckem]

From your own quote:



I would think that only discriminating against same-sex marriage cakes, but still providing bday cakes, etc to gay clients would be only a narrow claim.

The reality is you are on the losing side of gay rights. You theoretical case will never be heard by scotus.

 

[fskimospy]

From your own quote:

I would think that only discriminating against same-sex marriage cakes, but still providing bday cakes, etc to gay clients would be only a narrow claim.

Read it however you want if it makes you feel better.

 

[sportage]

I wonder what all those smiling women side by side with the hobby lobby lawyers will do when their little 14 year old Amy Joe tells them, "Mommie Dearest, Im knocked up".
And mommie dearest replies, " NO MORE WIRE HANGERS!!! EXCEPT.... THIS ONE TIME".
AMY!!! Get the hangers!

 

[glenn1]

The ACA contraception mandate was stupid and political pandering at its absolute worst. It should have never passed and it should be repealed now. If you want to subsidize contraception do it directly rather than this backwards ass way of pre-paying for it via health insurance plans.

That being said, this decision and others like it (e.g. allowing religious exemption from vaccination, etc.) are even stupider. Religious beliefs shouldn't be a "get out of jail free" card exempting people from any public health rule.

 

[soulcougher73]

Corporations are people...

Amerifam: http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/95lhsj/amerifam

 

[OutHouse]

Hobby Lobby wins in that they don't have to pay/provide contraceptive coverage.

hobby lobby was paying for contraceptives, they just had a problem with 4 of them that would cause an abortion. they never said they would not pay for the BC pill or the 30 other forms of BC.

 

[fskimospy]

hobby lobby was paying for contraceptives, they just had a problem with 4 of them that would cause an abortion. they never said they would not pay for the BC pill or the 30 other forms of BC.

Even though those 4 don't actually cause an abortion, medically speaking.

I just heard a funny quote on NPR: "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one."

 

[Brainonska511]

hobby lobby was paying for contraceptives, they just had a problem with 4 of them that would cause an abortion. they never said they would not pay for the BC pill or the 30 other forms of BC.

Well, 4 it *believed* could do that, despite scientific evidence to the contrary. What else will your company be allowed to do if it has a sincerely held religious belief? That doesn't even get into how a corporation, that is separated from its original owners for liability, but gets to keep its owner's religious beliefs. Or that religion is inherently human...

 

[nehalem256]

I wonder what all those smiling women side by side with the hobby lobby lawyers will do when their little 14 year old Amy Joe tells them, "Mommie Dearest, Im knocked up".
And mommie dearest replies, " NO MORE WIRE HANGERS!!! EXCEPT.... THIS ONE TIME".
AMY!!! Get the hangers!

So what you are saying is that I can get free coat hangers by claiming its a form of birth control.

 

[sportage]

Strangely and as a true subscriber in devils advocate law, I still applaud this decision because it stirs the pot. Makes people think. Especially people that usually do not think or ignore all this legal and political stuff. Rulings have real impact on real lives. Religious grounds look all fine and glossy on paper, but what will mom do about her little 14 year old Amy?
Amy was planning on medical school. Amy gets gets straight A's in school.
Raising little Amy's baby was NOT in the family future.
And especially where that boy that knocked little 14 year old Amy up was of Islamic decent.
Bottom line... big time Oy Vey!
Mom... lets just hope you do not work for hobby lobby.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm happy to see that Scalia is such a fan of religious liberty, unless that liberty involves peyote of course.

 

[nehalem256]

Read it however you want if it makes you feel better.

But in a blistering dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sotomayor, lambasted the majority opinion—delivered by five male justices—as "a decision of startling breadth" that would allow corporations to "opt out of any law … they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs."

http://www.nationaljournal.com/heal...-hobby-lobby-ruling-may-create-havoc-20140630

Seems like Justice Ginsburg agrees with my reading.

Perhaps she is just getting senile in her old age?

 

[JEDIYoda]

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?

what`s sad is that you are smarter than that......you know better and your argument hold absolutely no water. At best it has nothing to do with the ruling and at worst it has nothing to do with the ruling...

 

[JEDIYoda]

Religious beliefs shouldn't be a "get out of jail free" card exempting people from any public health rule.

awwwww...butt hurt much??

 

[JEDIYoda]

Well, 4 it *believed* could do that, despite scientific evidence to the contrary. What else will your company be allowed to do if it has a sincerely held religious belief? That doesn't even get into how a corporation, that is separated from its original owners for liability, but gets to keep its owner's religious beliefs. Or that religion is inherently human...

Your babble has to do with what exactly???

 

[TerryMathews]

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.....

Didn't you guys say the same thing about Chick Fil A?

 

[DCal430]

Horrible, travesty of justice here people. We need some of these "justices" to be gone ASAP.

 

[Genx87]

Horrible, travesty of justice here people. We need some of these "justices" to be gone ASAP.

Why? Because of one decision you dont agree with?

 

[fskimospy]

Why? Because of one decision you dont agree with?

I'd say that I'm looking forward to the departure of several of these justices ASAP due to lots of decisions I don't agree with. If we're lucky Obama will get one more appointment before his term is up. If Hillary wins (and I think she has a decent chance) that should really be an opportunity to clean house.

 

[Knowing]

Just popping in to add some anecdata:

I've never been forced to shop at hobby lobby. Accordingly, I've never been forced to subsidize the religious views of those who profit from hobby lobby. OTOH, my relationship with my insurer is considerably more coercive.

I wonder why people can't engage in free exchange with drug companies to purchase hormonal birth control over the counter after a walk-in 30 minute annual exam with a nurse practitioner. Or free / cheap on a sliding scale based on income from Planned Parenthood or the local health department.

It feels like consumption of health products and services are being made arbitrarily more difficult so that more profit can be extracted from an otherwise simple transaction.

 

[row]

sooooo no freebies for sandra. wonder where she'll acquire the funds to cover her sexual escapades?

oh wait she's running for congress!

hahahahaha

Control For $9/Month…

And this is without insurance.

Kroger:
Kroger Generic Drug List and Kroger Store Locator
Sprintec or Trinessa: $9/month or $24/3 months
Price may higher in CA, MN, WY

Target:
Target Generic Drug List (under women’s health) and Target Store Locator
Sprintec or Tri-sprintec: $9/month
Price may be higher in CA, MN, MT, PA, RI, TN, WI, and WY.

Wal-Mart:
Wal-Mart Generic Drug List (under women’s health) and Wal-Mart Store Locator
Sprintec or Tri-sprintec $9/month
Price may be higher in CA, HI, MN, MT, PA, TN, WI, and WY.

Sam’s Club
Sam’s Club Generic Drug List and Sam’s Club Store Locator
Sprintec or Tri-sprintec: $9/month
Price may be higher in CA, HI, MN, MT, PA, TN, WI, and WY.

 

[Genx87]

I'd say that I'm looking forward to the departure of several of these justices ASAP due to lots of decisions I don't agree with. If we're lucky Obama will get one more appointment before his term is up. If Hillary wins (and I think she has a decent chance) that should really be an opportunity to clean house.

Obama is a lame duck that will have to deal with more republicans after this election cycle. Anybody he nominates will have to be moderate.

Hillary winning is a possibility if she can keep that foot of hers out of her mouth.

 

[xBiffx]

I'd say that I'm looking forward to the departure of several of these justices ASAP due to lots of decisions I don't agree with. If we're lucky Obama will get one more appointment before his term is up. If Hillary wins (and I think she has a decent chance) that should really be an opportunity to clean house.

So much delusion wrapped up in such a little post. Its fricken cute!