Just to expand a little on this, Alito made sure to note that this ruling didn't extend to those other crazy religions that ban blood transfusions, just our....
Clearly you didn't read the opinion pg 45.
The answer is that this group of five starts with a conclusion and works the law to justify it. Just as in Bush v. Gore where the made pains to declare the decision as not precedent, here they also carved out a narrow class of religious extremists who get extra deference. Is this why the right is so scared of Shariah law? Is it because they want the right to dictate based on their religion all to themselves?
So deference to permit religious expression is too much for the US ? Or are you thinking of Mao's China ? Read the intro paragraph and try again.
This decision is not surprising but it is disgusting all the same.
I'm disgusted too, but primarily by ppl who can't even consider the other side of an issue rationally, nor tolerate differing points of view without slinging massive mud.
The hell? Hobby Lobby is not a religious organization, its a for-profit company
The two are not mutually exclusive. Further the individuals who form corporations are not required to drop their religious beliefs, or political views at the door. What would make you believe otherwise ? Why do you think the state has some right to beat the religious views out of corporations ? By one measure there are 39000 organizations with "Catholic" in the name, about 19000 "Lutheran" and so on. Get a clue.
I can't see how carving out a special exception for Christian-owned businesses is anything other than an establishment of religion.
B/c the law specifically made an unnecessary imposition on the practice of religion. It's my understanding that Islam, Hindus, many BUddhaists and Judaism eschew abortion too.
If Hobby Lobby wanted to opt out of just about anything else, like vaccinations, blood transfusions, or organ transplants they would be laughed out of the courtroom.
The opinion addressed that exact issue. Read it before drooling on the thread.
Stepping back from the issue a tad I think this is why I'm not comfortable with form of compensation other then cash.
Cash is neutral. Other forms of compensations are by definition earmarked for specific purposes and carry more... moral weight to them if that makes any sense.
But cash gives the cash-holder liberty and that seems to be opposed to the ends preferred by the Liberal-Progressives. You might decide to buy what you want instead of what the state wants you to have.
It's a good point - the "employer as insurer" is a failed concept that began under FDRs wage caps - typical that a politician like FDR (or Nixon for that matter) would fall for the policy-candy of a command-economy without recognizing the problems & pitfalls.
The employer/employee relationship is ideally a wage for work exchange of value - a quid pro quo. Because the Left has already distorted employers position into health insurer and tax collector and retirement provide, sometimes educator, they see no reason to not continue by converting the employer into a charity and provider of welfare (see threads by the rabid anti-Walmarters).
Just pay people in money which can be used for anything and then the employers can't act like they are directly supporting something they don't like.
Right ! OTOH many ppl will refuse to buy insurance on their own tab, and yet SOME of these uninsured will expect the state to pay when they become ill. Yes there are some imprudent people in the world, and while creating a safety net just encourages more imprudence, allowing people to suffer the consequences of their bad decisions creates less. It's a reason why selective charity with some social opprobrium is probably a good course.
The worst of it is that it is just a continuation of the "corporations are people" ruling in Citizens United. If it weren't for that obviously completely and unambiguously wrong ruling, then this one wouldn't have had a chance.
No - that's not the problem at all, and related rulings go back to the 1820s at least.. In a
very limited sense Corps are treated like persons so that can form contracts, bring and be subject to lawsuit. Corps lack most standing as "persons" - can't vote and can't avoid self-incriminations and in most ways are not people.
Ultimately Corps are just a group of ppl who get together to pursue an end, and preventing a Corp from pursing political ends or considering religious or social issues in selecting methods to their end is nonsense. I believe the DNC, RNC and certainly the state and local party organizations are privately held corporations - do we expect these or PACs to not promote their issues ?
Now we just need to figure out some way to put corporations in jail when fines aren't enough. You can't have all the perks of being a "person" while ignoring the penalties.
Rubbish thinking that comes from a place of hatred - they don't have "all the perks of being a "person"". That's ridiculous , hyperbolic and dangerous nonsense.
There is nothing about ppl organizing as corporations to further their common political ends that implies any sort of criminality. It's you "can't tolerate dissent", shout-down every alternative, totalitarian types, who need a time-out.
McCain–Feingold Act was wrong-headed, anti-democratic and suppresses legitimate political expression. The concept behind McC-F is fatally flawed and the act should be eliminated.
--
I think the main flaw in American politics is not money and organizations, but the partisan, manipulated, dumb and lazy press.
