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

[crashtech]

There should be some understanding that the people in charge of these companies may consider themselves personally accountable for providing this "benefit" that they believe is tantamount to murder. That said, they certainly must realize they cannot control the actions of adults in their employ. Women that work there are obviously not barred from getting contraception, so they should have a means to recover the cash value of the benefit that is not provided to them, as it is to others in other companies, so they can obtain it anyway. This would be an equitable outcome that relieves the religious of moral culpability while not abridging anyone's right to obtain treatments that are widely available under other employers.

So much posturing and so little room for accommodation. Depressing.

 

[chowderhead]

Scalia wrote the majority opinion Employment Division v. Smith 1990 saying the state can deny unemployment benefits to Native Americans fired for using peyote as part of their religion.
He wrote "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."
So for profit corporations can profess religious beliefs superior to the law of the land but actual people cannot. I see where the priorities are.

 

[MrPickins]

We can set the rules about corporations however we want. They are a legal constructs that separate the original owner from the company. Being able to have some of the rights you mention is important for how a corporation can function. However, religion is an inherently human quality and I fail to see how a corporation can have a religion. Do you go to church with your corporation? Is your corporation Muslim or Jewish? What other acts of discrimination will corporations push in the name of sincerely held beliefs?

Has your corporation been saved by baptism, or just by faith?

 

[sportage]

Scalia wrote the majority opinion Employment Division v. Smith 1990 saying the state can deny unemployment benefits to Native Americans fired for using peyote as part of their religion.
He wrote "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."
So for profit corporations can profess religious beliefs superior to the law of the land but actual people cannot. I see where the priorities are.

We all know these justices decide what they want to decide, then dig deep to find any so called reasoning to justify.
It reminds me of the days before the civil rights act. Where blacks were treated as second class citizens and for every reason imaginable.
As when they were not allowed to vote because they failed to pass some on the spot imaginary test.
This same mindset is exactly how the right wing of the high court rules.
First the decision, then their pointless dumbfounded reasoning.

The high court is running amuck. But they can be easily fixed. Fixed by the congress with electing democrats into control. If polls are correct and the majority of citizens want different decisions from the court on all of these issues, then voting in the right people should be a no brainer. Over 50% of the public feels hobby lobby should not be allowed to deny and force their personal religious beliefs onto the employee. Over 50%.
So congress can easily fix this. But first with replacing the old with the new.
In the end, the people can impose their will on the final say.
But first, we need to clean house. Big time!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Are you trying to argue that people can't think that the dissenters in a 5-4 case were right? If not, what are you trying to argue?

I'm merely amused. It seems both sides have some valid points and concerns however there is a difference between commonplace and expert opinions. For my part I know I'm not qualified to put mine forward as authoritative. That I follow a line of reasoning or many for that matter hardly qualifies me as a judge of judges as many have, but then I'm too old to know everything. I leave that to younger people. If I were to make a comment it would be on the most excellent thread title which states "closely held". The decision seems to be more specific then some would like meaning legal protections remain for gays, but recognizes that incorporation does not make for cookie cutter establishments, something the other side wants. At the end of the day this has limited and specific consequences. That's rather dull though and not to be tolerated by the general membership.

 

[nehalem256]

Are you trying to argue that people can't think that the dissenters in a 5-4 case were right? If not, what are you trying to argue?

The irony with your statement is that if it had gone 5-4 you would be making exactly that claim.

 

[nehalem256]

There should be some understanding that the people in charge of these companies may consider themselves personally accountable for providing this "benefit" that they believe is tantamount to murder. That said, they certainly must realize they cannot control the actions of adults in their employ. Women that work there are obviously not barred from getting contraception, so they should have a means to recover the cash value of the benefit that is not provided to them, as it is to others in other companies, so they can obtain it anyway. This would be an equitable outcome that relieves the religious of moral culpability while not abridging anyone's right to obtain treatments that are widely available under other employers.

There is such a method. Its called working for a company that does provide that benefit. If Company A would pay me 10/hr for my services and company B would pay 12/hr for my services if I choose to work for company A I shouldn't be able to sue them for an extra 2/hr claiming I could have been paid more.

 

[Brainonska511]

I'm merely amused. It seems both sides have some valid points and concerns however there is a difference between commonplace and expert opinions. For my part I know I'm not qualified to put mine forward as authoritative. That I follow a line of reasoning or many for that matter hardly qualifies me as a judge of judges as many have, but then I'm too old to know everything. I leave that to younger people. If I were to make a comment it would be on the most excellent thread title which states "closely held". The decision seems to be more specific then some would like meaning legal protections remain for gays, but recognizes that incorporation does not make for cookie cutter establishments, something the other side wants. At the end of the day this has limited and specific consequences. That's rather dull though and not to be tolerated by the general membership.

Maybe, but 'closely-held' would affect more people than you might think.

With IRS defines a closely held corporation as a corporation that has more than 50% of the value of its outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by 5 or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year and is not a personal service corporation.

Along with the fact that these closely-held corporations employ a lot of people:

According to a 2009 research paper from NYU Stern School of Business, these corporations account for 52 percent of private employment and 51 percent of private-sector output in the country. Those percentages might be outdated now but still give a sense of just how many workers are employed at closely held corporations. Fifty-two percent of today's private sector employees comes out to approximately 60.4 million people, based on the latest data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...people_work_at_closely_held_corporations.html


Is it likely they'll all try to claim religious exemptions? No. But I doubt we've seen the end of this weaselly behavior.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Maybe, but 'closely-held' would affect more people than you might think.

With IRS defines a closely held corporation as a corporation that has more than 50% of the value of its outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by 5 or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year and is not a personal service corporation.

Along with the fact that these closely-held corporations employ a lot of people:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...people_work_at_closely_held_corporations.html


Is it likely they'll all try to claim religious exemptions? No. But I doubt we've seen the end of this weaselly behavior.

I work for a company in an at will state. I can be fired for merely having an opinion. I can be harassed and abused and treated in abominable ways. I've been told that is a right of free speech. Far far worse can and does happen than what HL can inflict as a result of this ruling. Consequently while I can see objections I have a hard time getting worked up when people in my line of work are dropping dead due to conditions. Also, this is being set up as a crisis by some and it isn't. We're very concerned about principle but real world abuse? Not so much. Why are so many upset about this when they themselves can find themselves ruined after faithfully working decades, being fired just to ensure a bigger bonus for top management. Bizarre priorities.

 

[Brainonska511]

I work for a company in an at will state. I can be fired for merely having an opinion. I can be harassed and abused and treated in abominable ways. I've been told that is a right of free speech. Far far worse can and does happen than what HL can inflict as a result of this ruling. Consequently while I can see objections I have a hard time getting worked up when people in my line of work are dropping dead due to conditions. Also, this is being set up as a crisis by some and it isn't. We're very concerned about principle but real world abuse? Not so much. Why are so many upset about this when they themselves can find themselves ruined after faithfully working decades, being fired just to ensure a bigger bonus for top management. Bizarre priorities.

I find those things abominable too. It's just another ruling that allows employers to further chip away at what little protections employees have.

 

[crashtech]

There is such a method. Its called working for a company that does provide that benefit. If Company A would pay me 10/hr for my services and company B would pay 12/hr for my services if I choose to work for company A I shouldn't be able to sue them for an extra 2/hr claiming I could have been paid more.

True, they are free to leave. Sigh. Trying to leave an ideology behind is rather fruitless on a message board. I guess it's true what they say about what you find in the middle of the road.

 

[sandorski]

Completely absurd.

 

[Knowing]

While everyone is concerned with the plight of the poor downtrodden Hobby Lobby workers, why isn't anyone volunteering to teach them how to use the hormonal birth control that is already offered per the mandate? Having once paid for emergency hormonal birth control I'm confident that most women would prefer the side effects of the former rather than the latter.

There is such a method. Its called working for a company that does provide that benefit. If Company A would pay me 10/hr for my services and company B would pay 12/hr for my services if I choose to work for company A I shouldn't be able to sue them for an extra 2/hr claiming I could have been paid more.

Opportunity cost isn't a thing because equal opportunity means we need to guarantee outcomes, obviously.

 

[OBLAMA2009]

man these extreme right wing judges are such a fail for democracy

 

[Oldgamer]

Scalia wrote the majority opinion Employment Division v. Smith 1990 saying the state can deny unemployment benefits to Native Americans fired for using peyote as part of their religion.
He wrote "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."
So for profit corporations can profess religious beliefs superior to the law of the land but actual people cannot. I see where the priorities are.

Just like Scalia and Thomas wrote that a 250ft buffer must be made to keep protesters from being seen by the Supreme Court justices, and that it is constitutional to do so, yet, he says it is unconstitutional for a 35 ft buffer for abortion clinics.


The inconsistency is because they are "politically activist judges" whose hate for this president and hate for the ACA has led to these inconsistencies. They are not making rulings based on facts, logic or common sense at all. Today's ruling was all about weakening the ACA and pleasing the right wing base.

 

[HomerJS]

While everyone is concerned with the plight of the poor downtrodden Hobby Lobby workers, why isn't anyone volunteering to teach them how to use the hormonal birth control that is already offered per the mandate? Having once paid for emergency hormonal birth control I'm confident that most women would prefer the side effects of the former rather than the latter.



Opportunity cost isn't a thing because equal opportunity means we need to guarantee outcomes, obviously.

How about teaching Hobby Lobby the morning after pill does not terminate an existing pregnancy so there is no basis for a life objection.

 

[theeedude]

Just like Scalia and Thomas wrote that a 250ft buffer must be made to keep protesters from being seen by the Supreme Court justices, and that it is constitutional to do so, yet, he says it is unconstitutional for a 35 ft buffer for abortion clinics.


The inconsistency is because they are "politically activist judges" whose hate for this president and hate for the ACA has led to these inconsistencies. They are not making rulings based on facts, logic or common sense at all. Today's ruling was all about weakening the ACA and pleasing the right wing base.

I believe it's going to backfire. Arbitrary limits based on corporate owner's religious preferences undermine support for employer based health system and create an opening for a single payer system. There is now an opening for Democrats to push for government paid women's health coverage to cover employees whose companies refuse to provide it. And if Republicans block it, Democrats can say, their judicial appointees took this away from women, and their politicians are standing in the way of restoring it. This keeps the "war on women" theme alive and well for Democrats. Long term it's toxic to the GOP.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Agreed senseamp are all conservatives collectively shooting themselves in the foot now?

 

[spacejamz]

The inconsistency is because they are "politically activist judges" whose hate for this president and hate for the ACA has led to these inconsistencies. They are not making rulings based on facts, logic or common sense at all. Today's ruling was all about weakening the ACA and pleasing the right wing base.

Aren't these the same judges who ruled it was tax 2 years ago that allowed Obamacare to survive?

 

[TerryMathews]

Aren't these the same judges who ruled it was tax 2 years ago that allowed Obamacare to survive?

Classic liberal thinking: that was yesterday, what have the Supremes done for me today?

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Oh my, this is too rich:

What Hobby Lobby Shows about Obama’s Fundamental Abuse of Executive Power


By John Yoo

Hehehehehehe.

 

[compuwiz1]

man these extreme right wing judges are such a fail for democracy

You are an idiot, who is ignorant about the issue. HL is not anti contraceptive. They don't want to provide means of murdering babies. Religious choice is what has made this country great. This is a victory for religious choice and it's nice to see the SCOTUS standing with us for those values.

Boy, the liberals sure have their panties in a wad today! So, once again, the BS war on women drums are beating. There is no war on women, it's all shit the democrats want you to believe, to bolster their base. Pure horse shit.

 

[ivwshane]

You are an idiot, who is ignorant about the issue. HL is not anti contraceptive. They don't want to provide means of murdering babies. Religious choice is what has made this country great. This is a victory for religious choice and it's nice to see the SCOTUS standing with us for those values.

Boy, the liberals sure have their panties in a wad today! So, once again, the BS war on women drums are beating. There is no war on women, it's all shit the democrats want you to believe, to bolster their base. Pure horse shit.

Religious choice? Whose choice? What does birth control have to do with a corporation? So a corporation limiting what an employee can do with compensation given to them is your idea of religious freedom?

I'd say you are reaching a bit there but look who I'm talking to.

 

[sandorski]

You are an idiot, who is ignorant about the issue. HL is not anti contraceptive. They don't want to provide means of murdering babies. Religious choice is what has made this country great. This is a victory for religious choice and it's nice to see the SCOTUS standing with us for those values.

Boy, the liberals sure have their panties in a wad today! So, once again, the BS war on women drums are beating. There is no war on women, it's all shit the democrats want you to believe, to bolster their base. Pure horse shit.

It is using Religion for the purpose of Oppression. The Employees can practice their Religious Choice, they shouldn't have it dictated to them by their Employer.

 

[OutHouse]

It is using Religion for the purpose of Oppression. The Employees can practice their Religious Choice, they shouldn't have it dictated to them by their Employer.

They are free to go buy the 4 drugs on their own. Nobody is restricting them of anything.