• 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

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.

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.
 
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?

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).
 
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.

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.
 
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).

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.
 
White? What does that have to do with anything?

Is it impossible to discuss anything on its merits anymore?

I'm looking forward to someone figuring out how to call supporters of this decision bigoted.

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/13pdf/13-354_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.
 
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.

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.
 
I'm looking forward to someone figuring out how to call supporters of this decision bigoted.

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.
 
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.

Exactly. How is this not a move toward a government established religion when the Judicial Branch can designate which religious beliefs are legitimate?
 
What does this mean? If that's not clear, what I'm asking is why did you say this decision will be reversed when the "white" justices are gone? What does being white have anything to do with this decision?

It doesn't have anything to do with the decision, I was just archetyping the 2014 religious person as an old white guy.
 
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.

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."
 
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.

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.
 
Looks like RJ's post made SCOTUSblog's #hotcourttakes

The first reactions from other news sources overread Hobby Lobby significantly. The Court makes clear that the government can provide coverage to the female employees. And it strongly suggests it would reject broad religious claims to, for example, discriminate against gay employees.
 
Back
Top