SCOTUS decides for Hobby Lobby

[The Minsky Moment]

In Citizens United, none of the rights of the individual human beings that made up the corporation were implicated because all of them were free to contribute money in political campaigns.  The question was whether the entity itself had some kind of meta-right to contribute funds qua entity.

Here Alito is proceeding from the backwards premise.   He actually concedes that in cases involving large publicly traded companies, RFRA claims could not arise because one could not attribute a religious belief or point of view to the corporation.  He points out that the companies at issue in Hobby Lobby are closely held and thus attributes the beliefs of the unitary owners to the entities.

Using the same logic, a large or diversely owned company cannot hold political views, and thus cannot have its speech rights burdened by the finance laws at issue in Citizens United.

[Admiral Yi]

In Citizens United, none of the rights of the individual human beings that made up the corporation were implicated because all of them were free to contribute money in political campaigns.  The question was whether the entity itself had some kind of meta-right to contribute funds qua entity.

Did the ruling specifically say the corporation has rights in addition to those of its owners?  I thought this was just a bumper sticker line from The Nation or The Progressive.

[Malthus]

What's the slippery slope implications? I know the ruling was limited to contraception, but is there any logical reason to confine it to that?

If, for example, a closely-held corp was owned by Christian Scientists, could it refuse to fund health insurance generally? 

[Admiral Yi]

The problem with the Christian Scientist example is, AFAIK, they don't have a problem with non-believers using medicine.

Same with Jews/Muslims pork etc.

[Valmy]

The problem with the Christian Scientist example is, AFAIK, they don't have a problem with non-believers using medicine.

Same with Jews/Muslims pork etc.

So if there was a religion established, which there probably is, that did have a problem with non-believers using medicine then they could? 

[Admiral Yi]

So if there was a religion established, which there probably is, that did have a problem with non-believers using medicine then they could?

I would think so.

A ruling either way would have been problematic IMO.

[Malthus]

The problem with the Christian Scientist example is, AFAIK, they don't have a problem with non-believers using medicine.

Same with Jews/Muslims pork etc.

Is that the test? Something that believers have a problem with non-believers doing?

How about Scientologists and psychiatry? They definitely believe it is evil in general, not just 'not for them'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scientology_psychiatry_kills.jpg

[Admiral Yi]

I don't know if that's THE test.  It's A problem I found with your (and Ginsberg's) examples.

[merithyn]

What's the slippery slope implications? I know the ruling was limited to contraception, but is there any logical reason to confine it to that?

If, for example, a closely-held corp was owned by Christian Scientists, could it refuse to fund health insurance generally?

My understanding is that it has always been the case that closely held companies can opt out of various bits and pieces of health insurance, but in doing so, they were required to pay additional taxes and fines. Hobby Lobby didn't want to pay this, and so went to the Supreme Court in order to avoid doing so.

Minsky, is this correct?

[alfred russel]

I'm sort of confused why this is a big deal. The number of closely held businesses that are morally opposed to birth control must be very small, and it isn't as though there is a long held right to free contraceptives that is being violated.

At the same time, I doubt Hobby Lobby really cares. Probably if it is more into this to save money or oppose obama.

[Barrister]

I always wondered why birth control suddenly became a big concern for protestants like the Hobby Lobby owner.  Worrying about birth control used to be something we made fun of the catholics about. :p

[derspiess]

I always wondered why birth control suddenly became a big concern for protestants like the Hobby Lobby owner.  Worrying about birth control used to be something we made fun of the catholics about. :p

I don't think he's quite the same type of mainstream protestant you & I are.  Also, his main objection seems to be over morning after pills and IUDs.  IUDs can apparently prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus, so to him that's basically abortion.

[Valmy]

I'm sort of confused why this is a big deal. The number of closely held businesses that are morally opposed to birth control must be very small, and it isn't as though there is a long held right to free contraceptives that is being violated.

At the same time, I doubt Hobby Lobby really cares. Probably if it is more into this to save money or oppose obama.

It may not be a big deal.  If you read the discussion we are having it concerns the implications of the decision beyond this one case.

[derspiess]

It may not be a big deal.  If you read the discussion we are having it concerns the implications of the decision beyond this one case.

Culture War

[Razgovory]

I was happy with the ruling but after that initial reaction wore off, I realized it wouldn't have been that huge a deal either way.  Some days I just don't feel like participating in TEH CULTURE WAR.

You just need to have your buttons pushed.  Read a bunch of articles from Breitbart.