Fair. I'm just basing on the excerpts that Alito and Kennedy shared from the bench.Originally Posted by Junebug
Fair. I'm just basing on the excerpts that Alito and Kennedy shared from the bench.
Can corporations speak? Can corporations sign contracts?
Can a non-profit religious organization (say the YMCA) hold religious beliefs? You can't baptize the YMCA. A Catholic School has no soul. Do they also lack religious freedoms?
I think there's a pretty solid distinction between for-profit corporations and entities and non-profits. At least policy-wise IMO.
But more on this point, I think it depends on your series of questions what these organizations are seeking to do (if that makes sense).
Like all Supreme Court decisions the lower courts will sort it out. A list is more guidance than they often get. If the Supreme Court feels like the lower courts are being too strict or too liberal with their rulings they will take cert and set another precedent. This is how the system works.
If this just interprets the RFRA, and leaves unanswered whether a corporation has free exercise rights under the first amendment, Congress could also simply change the law to prevent these types of exemptions.
The SC has legitimized discrimination against women. This is another radical decision by the worst SC since before Brown.
I really hope the Clinton Court revisits the insane concept corporations as people.
Can a for-profit corporation hold any views or any purpose other than maximizing profits for shareholders?
Policy-wise you might be correct. But it doesn't make sense to say the YMCA is a "person" under the RFRA (or 14th amendment) but not a for-profit corporation.
It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it, really just the religious component that does.
Decision is out: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...3-354_olp1.pdf
The decision isn't bigoted, I just think the majority is grasping at straws for closely-held corporations to retain RFRA rights. Going to read the decision now to see how they explain it.
Ask and you shall receive
I disagree with everything in this post except the last sentence. This isn't a radical decision, it's just an interpretation of RFRA. Also the Court expressly stated that this doesn't not give carte blanche to discriminate.
It's only directed at healthcare for women. Not a single man is covered by this decision. Once again it's a bunch of old men telling women their healthcare options are not as protected as men.
Not exactly bigoted, but if you're a catholic and oppose birth control, that's all well and good. You can not provide that for your employee. If you're a Jehovah's Witness, you still have to provide blood transfusions, because we said so. You're religious beliefs don't quite matter as much.
Health coverage needs to be separated from employment.
This is a great line from Alito re: the $2000 penalty for not providing insurance might actually be less than the cost of insuring each person for Hobby Lobby:
"It ignores the fact that the plaintiffs have religious reasons for providing health-insurance coverage for their employees"
And what might these religious reasons be Alito?!?! I suppose we'll have to see further in the decision if this is explicated further.
By the way, wait until you read Ginsburg's dissent. It's very nearly exactly what I posted earlier. She specifically says this is not narrow. But I guess you guys know more than she and three other Justices.
Exactly. How is this not a move toward a government established religion when the Judicial Branch can designate which religious beliefs are legitimate?
It doesn't have anything to do with the decision, I was just archetyping the 2014 religious person as an old white guy.
Yep, "freedom of religion, predominantly just if you're a Christian though, otherwise we might just dismiss your beliefs as absurd and not entitled to coverage."
Three members of the Warren Court that decided Brown (including the Chief Justice) also wrote this:
"Some may think that one group or another should not express its views in an election because it is too powerful, because it advocates unpopular ideas, or because it has a record of lawless action. But these are not justifications for withholding First Amendment rights from any group—labor or corporate. First Amendment rights are part of the heritage of all persons and groups in this country. They are not to be dispensed or withheld merely because we or the Congress thinks the person or group is worthy or unworthy.
Ginsburg says this decision opens the door to wider decisions. Like Spot says, "why is HL's religion OK but not Jehovah's Witness'?"
This is up there with as bad a decision as CU and VRA.
Well, it take at least a day for Texas to pass a poll tax and voter suppression law after the SC overturned VRA.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote