Supremes: Hobby Lobby & Harris Win

RFRA? Didn't Bill Clinton sign that into law? Religious zealot!

PrintSmith wrote: That broad brush you are painting with leads you to make numerous errors in your statements. The Greens never, ever, paid for the 4 abortifacients as a matter of corporate policy.

You are also mistaken in your belief that the Greens are forcing their religious beliefs on anyone else. They do not fire any employee who makes the elective decision to take these abortifacients. They do not require attendance at their church of choice by all of their employees. They do not require that their employees financially support their chosen religious institution. They do not require baptism in their faith as a condition of employment. They simply say that if you choose to take an abortifacient, it will be at your own expense, not theirs. They will not financially support, even indirectly, the destruction, or even the potential destruction, of a human life through the use of abortifacients.

The Greens do not oppose all forms of chemical sterilization, they only oppose those that have the potential to destroy a human life through the use of chemicals or devices which are primarily designed to create a miscarriage and thus the destruction of human life. That these 4 abortifacients are primarily designed to act by forcing a miscarriage is not in any way disputed as a matter of science. Thus you are incorrect again when you say that there is no scientific backing for the challenge to being compelled using the force of government to be party to the abortions that would result from the use of the compounds and devices.

And, for the record, nearly 90% of corporations in the Union are "closely held" ones. These are the small businesses that are the major employers in the Union. Large publicly traded corporations must still genuflect before the federal government, but this decision frees the vast majority of corporations from the federal government using force to obtain compliance to their dictates.

The RFRA does not need to specifically mention corporations to apply to them. The court has long upheld the decision that the members of a corporation do not surrender their rights by joining the corporation. A corporation is a group of individuals who jointly own property. Because every member of the corporation cannot be held personally liable for the individual acts of every other member of the corporation, which is what limits their liability to the assets of the corporation only, changes this reality not one smidgen. There is not a single argument to be made that all the members of a corporation should be personally liable for the actions of every other member of the corporation. There is not a single argument that can be supported by reason by which a member of the corporation should have their personal assets on the line should another member of the corporation act in a manner that they alone are responsible for. Were you and I to form a corporation, there is not a single reason why my personal assets should be on the line should you go off the deep end and shoot up a theater for instance. Absent the limits on the liability that correctly apply to a corporation, my personal assets would be subject to confiscation for your actions outside of the corporation because both of us are members. If you were to do such a deed it might be the end of the corporation because of your actions and the financial interest you had in the corporation, but my personal assets are properly off the table. That is why the law limits the financial liability of the members to the assets of the corporation. To suggest otherwise is, unsurprisingly, another of your disingenuous arguments that is wholly without merit.

Yet once again Printsmith smears me in an attempt to cover that he is either deliberately lying or is so inept in his factfinding to be misleading. The Greens admitted in their complaint that their insurance coverage for their employees for years included Plan B and Ella, two of the contraceptives that they now claim would violate their religious beliefs if they complied with the mandate that other for profit corporations must include. The very definition of hypocrisy.

Printsmith claims that 90% of all corporations are closely held and that this decision "frees" them from the mandate. What he misleadingly fails to mention is that small corporations do not have to comply with the ACA mandate and he even admits that most closely held corporations are small family owned. Very few large companies meet the definition of closely held and their competitors still fall within the confines of the mandate. But of course Printsmith fails to mention this.

Printsmith claims that all corporations are owned by individuals. Wrong. Most corporations are owned by institutional investors, mutual funds, retirement funds, even domestic and foreign governments.

Printsmith claims that this mandate would require individuals to lose their religious beliefs if they invest in a corporation. Ridiculous. It is whether or not individuals can use corporations to enforce their religous beliefs on their employees and avoid government regulations that apply to large for profit corporations.

Printstmith then goes off on a ad hoc ramble about corporations and their ability to shield investors from personal liablity. That is not what is at issue here. It is whether or not a large for profit corporation should be able to claim religious beliefs in order to avoid complying with corporate regulations.

Printsmith fails to address the issues as to whether large corporations that are closely held should be able to prevent insurance coverage to their employees on such "beliefs" no transfusions (Jehovah Witnesses), maternity benefits for unwed mothers (Southern Baptists), antidepressants (Scientologists), medical products derived from pigs (Muslim), and on and on. Or how about closely held corporations owned by members of White Supremacy churches and their ability to fire employees who cohabit with individuals of other ancestries. Or the myriad other potential actions in the name of their personal religious beliefs that owners of closely held corporations might decide to impose on their employees. As Scalia had stated in his earlier opinon upholding bans on indivdualsclaiming religious exemptions from government regulations before he completely flip flopped in this case:


"The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind—ranging from compulsory military service to the payment of taxes to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races."

What is particularly ironic about this decision is that these "beliefs" do not have to be founded in fact, only on their particular "beliefs". Alito admitted as much in his opinion. So the fact that IUDs are not so called "abortifactants" but are factually contraceptives in preventing fertilization does not matter, the only thing that matters is the Greens belief that they are abortifactants.

It is very telling that this decision by five Roman Catholic men is opposed by most American citizens and by most christian organizations.

You can keep trying to smear me, but maybe for once you should try to get your facts correct before you attack me personally in this forum.

Home Depot, 5-4 Controversial!
ACA Decision 5-4, it is the Law of the Land, get over it!

Where do you see that PrintSMith is "smearing" you and attacking you personally? All I see is him/her saying "you are mistaken". Do you consider that "smearing"?

OF COURSE, the decision was VERY narrow...AND it was split along GENDER lines....this will open up a
huge case load and the dockets will be toast. JMO

I am SO elated that I am not of child-bearing age...the control of MY reproductive choices were taken
into consideration when I was 26 and I made ABSOLUTELY sure that MY choice was the ONLY choice to be made.

40 or so years ago THAT was pretty much UNheard of....sterilization on a 26 year old female.

Luntz: Supreme Court has its lowest polling in 30 years, only 40%. People upset about the conservative majority and Hobby Lobby? Combined with people upset the John Roberts gave ACA a thumbs up?

I think this decision has opened a huge can of worms but -

The problem with claiming that Hobby Lobby is attempting to force their religion upon their employees specifically by denying them any access to birth control ...

That statement is just flat wrong. And don't forget -

The high court's decision in the Hobby Lobby case refocused attention on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that passed Congress overwhelmingly in 1993, with the support of some lawmakers still serving in both the House and Senate. The statute requires federal laws to accommodate individuals' religious beliefs unless there is a compelling interest at stake that can't be attained through other means.

online.wsj.com/articles/supreme-courts-h...eedom-law-1404155510

Someone can't just make a decree - thou shall supply all means of birth control no matter what you believe - and override a law that is on the books. Clearly there are other means available to attain the methods that Hobby Lobby didn't like. Planned Parenthood comes to mind.

Better get to work repealing, or modifying, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act before this gets out of hand. And I think it will.

It is a very specific ruling. SCOTUS will have to agree to hear any other cases, or can of worms, and they may choose not to.

SC I don't see where the corporate veil has been pierced. Do you have specific links that might clarify this. Thanks.