SCOTUS decides for Hobby Lobby

[The Minsky Moment]

Did the ruling specifically say the corporation has rights in addition to those of its owners? 

Sure. 
The law at issue in Citizens United permitted the individual members of Citizens United to use their own funds to finance the challenged communications. Nor was there a finding that the use of the corporate form was essential in order for the individuals to deliver that message.  The case was decided on the Court's conclusion that Citizens United, the corporation was entitled to protection for its own speech as an entity.

[dps]

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.

So what if it is a small number of businesses? Surely you aren't suggesting that the law shouldn't apply equally to everybody?

As Dorsey points out in reply #42, the law as written doesn't apply equally to all employers anyhow--I'm not sure if the cutoff is 50 employees or some other number, but smaller businesses generally aren't covered anyway. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Here's another way to look at it.
Let's say Hobby Lobby were to be responsible for a huge workplace accident and all the employees sued.
The owners would shield themselves from personal liability by taking the position that the corporation is a formally separate entity and that liability is limited to whatever assets the corporation has available to it.
But when it comes to the impact of a government regulation, the owners are insisting that the entity is transparent and the effect falls on them personally.

The decision is just incoherent doctrinally.  The Court is holding either one of two things, both absurd:
1) The Court is piercing the corporate veil for its constitutional analysis by treating the owners and the entity as synonymous, despite the lack of any factual findings that would support doing so,
OR
2) The Court is saying that a formally separate corporate entity can have religious beliefs, which is an even nuttier extension of the CU concept.

I don't see any other logical basis for the decision other than one of these two crazy options.

[grumbler]

My understanding is that Hobby Lobby offered healthcare that covered birth control prior to Obamacare. Their "religious convictions" clicked in only after it was required.

That seems stupid.

That's not quite right.  The Obama administration ruling that required them to offer contraception free, rather than as a normal health care item with a deductible, is what triggered the lawsuit.

[grumbler]

Here's another way to look at it.
Let's say Hobby Lobby were to be responsible for a huge workplace accident and all the employees sued.
The owners would shield themselves from personal liability by taking the position that the corporation is a formally separate entity and that liability is limited to whatever assets the corporation has available to it.
But when it comes to the impact of a government regulation, the owners are insisting that the entity is transparent and the effect falls on them personally.

The decision is just incoherent doctrinally.  The Court is holding either one of two things, both absurd:
1) The Court is piercing the corporate veil for its constitutional analysis by treating the owners and the entity as synonymous, despite the lack of any factual findings that would support doing so,
OR
2) The Court is saying that a formally separate corporate entity can have religious beliefs, which is an even nuttier extension of the CU concept.

I don't see any other logical basis for the decision other than one of these two crazy options.

You are using logic on a ruling from the Roberts court, the most activist court of the last 40 years.  That's why you are failing to grasp the issue.  This ruling is about the personal beliefs of the Supremes, not about the law.  Just as Citizens United was.  There is no requirement that personal beliefs be consistent or logical.

[Admiral Yi]

Here's another way to look at it.
Let's say Hobby Lobby were to be responsible for a huge workplace accident and all the employees sued.
The owners would shield themselves from personal liability by taking the position that the corporation is a formally separate entity and that liability is limited to whatever assets the corporation has available to it.
But when it comes to the impact of a government regulation, the owners are insisting that the entity is transparent and the effect falls on them personally.

The decision is just incoherent doctrinally.  The Court is holding either one of two things, both absurd:
1) The Court is piercing the corporate veil for its constitutional analysis by treating the owners and the entity as synonymous, despite the lack of any factual findings that would support doing so,
OR
2) The Court is saying that a formally separate corporate entity can have religious beliefs, which is an even nuttier extension of the CU concept.

I don't see any other logical basis for the decision other than one of these two crazy options.

I don't see the inconsistency.  The owners, by incorporating, are saying "if you want to do business with us, you should be aware that our liability is limited to $X."  They are also saying "we, as owners of this corporation, object on religious grounds to the government requirement that we provide contraception to our employees."

[Siege]

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.

Which is why we are losing.
The far left never take a day off.

[Ideologue]

Dude, we are lazy as shit and we don't even own guns.  We just have the moral authority.

[Siege]

Dude, we are lazy as shit and we don't even own guns.  We just have the moral authority.

No you don't have any moral authority.

You have the two most important fields of cultural warfare, the mainstream media and the education industry, which allows you to redefine the morality as you see fit.

[Neil]

What do contraceptives have to do with destroying embryos? Also, who needs insurance to buy contraceptives?

They want the contraceptives for free as a part of their insurance coverage.

[Ideologue]

Dude, we are lazy as shit and we don't even own guns.  We just have the moral authority.

No you don't have any moral authority.

You have the two most important fields of cultural warfare, the mainstream media and the education industry, which allows you to redefine the morality as you see fit.

The education industry doesn't have a single liberal in it.  If they say so, they're lying.

[merithyn]

My understanding is that Hobby Lobby offered healthcare that covered birth control prior to Obamacare. Their "religious convictions" clicked in only after it was required.

That seems stupid.

That's not quite right.  The Obama administration ruling that required them to offer contraception free, rather than as a normal health care item with a deductible, is what triggered the lawsuit.

But the ACA doesn't require anyone to offer contraception free. It just requires that contraception be included in the "package" of preventative care. Basically, there's a pool of cash for all covered employees that's earmarked for preventative care. The ACA details how much that has to be based on the number of employees. The pool pays out for annual check-ups, vaccinations, mammograms, contraceptives, prostate exams, etc.

That's what Hobby Lobby objected to. Before, there was a copay, but with the ACA, they're not allowed to charge a copay or deductible for any preventative care.

[jimmy olsen]

Most Americans are not going to accept a job without knowing about the benefits offered.

If Hobby Lobby was run by someone with religious objections to medical care, and thus they didn't offer health insurance at all, it wouldn't bother me to work there. When they made the offer I would evaluate it with the knowledge that I would need to get my own insurance privately. 9

That isn't an advantage for Hobby Lobby--tax and other incentives make it cheaper for them to offer insurance rather than an employee pay for it privately. Hence basically all employers offered their higher value employees health insurance long before Obamacare.

My understanding is that Hobby Lobby offered healthcare that covered birth control prior to Obamacare. Their "religious convictions" clicked in only after it was required.

Of the 20 varieties required to be covered by Obamacare they're willing to offer 16 of them, so it's only 4 they object to.

Of course the problem here is the slippery slope. A different company may be offended by all birth control and object to all 20.

[grumbler]

My understanding is that Hobby Lobby offered healthcare that covered birth control prior to Obamacare. Their "religious convictions" clicked in only after it was required.

That seems stupid.

That's not quite right.  The Obama administration ruling that required them to offer contraception free, rather than as a normal health care item with a deductible, is what triggered the lawsuit.

But the ACA doesn't require anyone to offer contraception free. It just requires that contraception be included in the "package" of preventative care. Basically, there's a pool of cash for all covered employees that's earmarked for preventative care. The ACA details how much that has to be based on the number of employees. The pool pays out for annual check-ups, vaccinations, mammograms, contraceptives, prostate exams, etc.

That's what Hobby Lobby objected to. Before, there was a copay, but with the ACA, they're not allowed to charge a copay or deductible for any preventative care.

The ACA didn't originally include birth control in preventive care.  That was added on Aug 1, 2011.  Hence my comment, and hence the lawsuit. 

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't see the inconsistency.  The owners, by incorporating, are saying "if you want to do business with us, you should be aware that our liability is limited to $X."  They are also saying "we, as owners of this corporation, object on religious grounds to the government requirement that we provide contraception to our employees."

I'm sure the owners feel that way, it is always preferable to have your cake (strict separation for liability) and eat it to (no separation for speech rights)

The question is what recognized, neutral principles of law would permit that.  There aren't any.  Corporations are creatures of state law and every state's law provides that the corporation is separate from its owners.   So the owners can jump up and down about their personal views, but their personal views don't get attributed to the corporation anymore than the views of the employees that run it, the customers that sustain it, the creditors that fund it, or the Secretary of State who validates the corporate charter.  The rights of equity owners are clearly set forth in statute and common law and basically amount to the right to elect directors and collect whatever residual profits are left after payment to creditors.  Not included in those rights is the right to treat the abstract corporate entity as some sort of personal political doppelganger.