US Supreme Court Rejects Obamas Birth Control Mandate

What's moronic is the idea that an employer's religion should have an influence in what kind of healthcare he offers to employee. (We are NOT turning this thread in a debate on whether or not it's moronic that health insurance should be left to employers to begin with)

As Justice Ginsberg said in her dissent, what about Jeovah's witness who believe blood transfusion is wrong, should they be spared from having their employee's health insurance cover that? What about scientologists (legally a religion in the US!) who hold that psychiatric treatement is evil, are they allowed to refuse to cover that with their health insurance?

More worrisome is the notion that a legal fiction (a corporation) can hold religious beliefs.

Because, let's get this in the clear here. The Green Family...is actually not relevant. They don't have a contract with the employees of Hobby Lobby. They don't provide these employees with health insurace. Hobby Lobby does these things. Hobby Lobby isn't the green family; it's, legally speaking, a different person. All they are, is shareholders of Hobby Lobby. Doesn't matter how large their share is. They are not Hobby Lobby, and Hobby Lobby is not them.

That's a legal fiction, of course, but a pretty damn important legal fiction. Why? Because, if Hobby Lobby ever goes bankrupt, it,s the legal fiction that keeps Hobby Lobby's creditors from saying "Hey Greens, your company is out of cash so sell your houses to pay its debts". By being a legally distinct person, Hobby Lobby has its own debts, its own assets, and any debt Hobby Lobby has can only be paid by seizing Hobby Lobby's belongings. Not the belongings of the shareholders.

But all the same, Hobby Lobby remains a legal fiction. So then the question is, how would a legal fiction have religious beliefs? It can certainly have interests, which may involve it taking side on some political issues (ie, "Vote for the guy who will lower our taxes", "Vote for the guy who will build a new highway next to our store"). But religious belief isn't a matter of interest - it's as the name say a matter of belief, a matter of faith. A legal fiction simply cannot have these things.

Religious freedom, intrisequely, is the right to freely practice and express your sincerely held religious beliefs - and the obligation for the state not to interfere with the free practice of your beliefs. If you don't have religious beliefs (And I don't mean agnosticism or atheism, which are, if not religious beliefs, at least religious positions, but the complete absence of any kind of religious position or beliefs), then it follows you cannot be prevented from practicing them. In which case, your religious freedom is not violated.

It seems to me that in this whole notion, the supreme court and the Green feel that you should be able to have your cake (be separate from the corporation when it's a matter of keeping your money safe) and eat it too (but be considered the same as the corporation when it comes to imposing your beliefs on the corporation).

That, in my opinion, is rather repugnant. Either Hobby Lobby is a separate legal entity, or it's not. If it is, then the Greens' religious beliefs shouldn't hold any relevance to the contractual relations of Hobby Lobby with its employees. If it's not, then the Greens had better hope they never run into financial trouble.

If you want to have the upsides of separate personhood, you have to accept the downsides.

Also:
Danger sign: The Supreme Court has already expanded Hobby Lobby decision*-*Los Angeles Times

So people claiming "it's just abortion-like stuff": kindly stop.

ncG1vNJzZmiapaGvorPAq5uepl6jsrV706GpnpmUqHy2v4ysrKmqlaKybq%2FOrqmtZaKat6av06xkqJqRoq60ecGiqa2gXZi8r8DRqKNmpZGjsaLAxGdob29iZYNw