• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

Just read up on the Hobby Lobby case. I bet it comes out 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby, restricted solely to companies who are singularly owned by an individual or family.

I still don't think a corporation has any personhood though. Individuals have freedom of religion, if you want to exercise that right then go ahead, but don't then claim your legally created entity (the corporation) also has freedom of religion. The corporation cannot think or pray. If you are going to have a corporation and provide insurance then you have to play by the rules.
 
A corporation can't vote. It can't be jailed. It's pure lunacy to say a corporation is a person.
 
A corporation can't vote. It can't be jailed. It's pure lunacy to say a corporation is a person.

it's also a concept that has a 200 year history in American jurisprudence. Corporations have enjoyed protections as persons under the 14th Amendment to some degree since around 1890.
 
And segregation in schools was protected until Brown.
 
I'm with RJ on this one. Corporations cannot hold any religious beliefs - sincerely held or not. The individual person retains their RFRA rights, a corporation IMO does not. I agree it can be murky if it's a single family employer but this is the family's religion not the corporation's.
 
Last edited:
I'm with RJ on this one. Corporations cannot hold any religious beliefs - sincerely held or not. The individual person retains their RFRA rights, a corporation IMO does not. I agree it can be murky if it's a single family employer but this is the family's religion not the corporation's.

That might be correct, but that's different than saying that 200 years worth of Supreme Court Justices have been insane, or comparing the concept of corporate personhood to Jim Crow.

Can groups of people that aren't incorporated hold religious beliefs as a group?

Does a corporation have any first amendment rights? If so which ones?

Can the government pass a law preventing corporations from mandating prayer before meetings, or having a chapel on the premises? What part of the constitution or current law would prevent such a law if not the 1st amendment or the RFRA?

I think this one will come down to Roberts and Kennedy. Even if it comes down in Hobby Lobby's favor I would expect Roberts to write the opinion and limit the holding as much as possible. I'd also expect him to remain silent on the constitutional issue.

If it comes down against Hobby Lobby I don't think the Court will go as far as stating that corporations have NO religious rights (in oral arguments Kagan expressed doubts that for-profit corporations simply lack religious rights altogether. I'd imagine either Kennedy or Roberts would insist on leaving that open before agreeing to join the 4 liberal justices).
 
They granted cert this morning in WildTangent v. Ultramerical, which hopefully will help end patent trolling.
 
Alito is writing the decision. I'm hopeful the justices that join him have convinced him to show some restraint. He was the justice most clearly against the gov't in oral arguments.
 
Harris v. Quinn - The Court recognizes a category of "partial public employees" that cannot be required to contribute union bargaining fees. Very limited ruling.
 
From the scotus blog:

Here is more qualification: It does not provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.by Amy Howe 10:19 AM Comment (0)

Here is a further attempt at qualification: This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs.by Amy Howe 10:18 AM Comment (0)

Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion says that the government could pay for the coverage itself, so that women receive it.by tgoldstein 10:18 AM Comment (0)

The Court says that the government has failed to show that the mandate is the least restrictive means of advancing its interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to birth control.by Amy Howe 10:17 AM Comment (0)

RFRA applies to regulations that govern the activities of closely held for-profit corporations like Conestoga, HL and Mardel.by Amy Howe 10:17 AM Comment (0)

Closely held corporations cannot be required to provide contraception coverage.by tgoldstein 10:17 AM Comment (0) -
 
Ridiculous. Corporations are legal fiction who cannot hold religious beliefs. You can't baptize a corporation. This is an absurd decision. RFRA clearly does not cover corporations - even closely held - as people.
 
From the scotus blog:

Here is more qualification: It does not provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.by Amy Howe 10:19 AM Comment (0)

Here is a further attempt at qualification: This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs.by Amy Howe 10:18 AM Comment (0)

Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion says that the government could pay for the coverage itself, so that women receive it.by tgoldstein 10:18 AM Comment (0)

The Court says that the government has failed to show that the mandate is the least restrictive means of advancing its interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to birth control.by Amy Howe 10:17 AM Comment (0)

RFRA applies to regulations that govern the activities of closely held for-profit corporations like Conestoga, HL and Mardel.by Amy Howe 10:17 AM Comment (0)

Closely held corporations cannot be required to provide contraception coverage.by tgoldstein 10:17 AM Comment (0) -

If HL wins, what's to stop a company that is owned or run by a Quaker from not paying taxes? After all it's their religious principles prohibit Quakers from participating in war. Or maybe they deduct the percentage that goes to the DOD.

It would allow any company to cut off all insurance by simply saying, "My religion precludes me from paying for it."

How could you stop any company from saying they have a Christian Scientist CEO who thinks God will cure you?

What stops any company from cherry-picking other parts of policy.

Further, if you can use religion to deny certain aspects of healthcare, why can't you use religion to deny service to gay people? Or single women?

Nailed it.
 
Dance much?

No, but an individual (or small group of individuals) running a closely held corporation does.

Sure and their personal religious freedom is not being violated. They can still believe what they want, the corporation on the they hand - generally created to distance itself from individual liability on the individual's behalf does not. People get all the benefits of distancing themselves from an enterprise while retaining religious rights with that corporation? It's total bullshit.
 
Looks like they got a little catty:

Ginsburg's dissent calls the majority opinion a "decision of startling breadth."

Justice Kennedy write to respond, in part, to Ginsburg's characterization of the majority opinion, saying that it "does not have the breadth and sweep ascribed to it by the respectful and powerful dissent."
 
So what is the litmus test for what employers may opt out of if they are a closely-held corporation? It's solely limited to contraceptive coverage? The Court lists things that won't qualify under this decision but it's obviously not exhaustive so are we going to litigate this every single time a small business decides to invoke religious freedom?

I think this decision sucks and I think it's going to be overruled in about thirty years when the old white people clinging to their religion leave the court.
 
Back
Top