mozartpc27 wrote:If you don't have to pay towards something that majority voted for and works on behalf of everyone, member or not, then you shouldn't have to pay taxes either if you don't like the government.

Barry Jive wrote:i liked how Kennedy went out of his way to note that this did not apply to things like blood transfusions. basically it seems like they don't see this as medicine, or if they do it's at a lower prioritization than the rest of women's medical expenses. birth control is considered a luxury, something you have to earn to benefit from. it's not like married Christians don't use it.

pacino wrote:
Oh, and HL doesn't believe that. Corporations have no beliefs.

phatj wrote:Life begins at conception is scientifically untrue?

Wheels Tupay wrote:So corporations can pretty much just say that they are into Scientology and say they don't believe in modern medicine, right?

drsmooth wrote:

Wheels Tupay wrote:So corporations can pretty much just say that they are into Scientology and say they don't believe in modern medicine, right?

not yet

but breathing spiritual "life" into the economic frankenstein monster that is the fictive corporate entity is one of John Roberts' weirder judicial projects

with respect to narrow categories of commercial/economic matters, there is/was at least some shred of reason behind creeping expansion of corporate entitlements ("rights"). Postulating political and now spiritual aspects of corporate existence worth giving the weight of law to is just plain foolish.

phatj wrote:Life begins at conception is scientifically untrue?

Because the Court agreed with Hobby Lobby and Conestoga that the contraception mandate imposes a substantial burden on their ability to exercise their religious beliefs, RFRA then required it to assess whether the mandate furthered an important government interest and does so in the least restrictive way possible. However, the Court skipped over the first half of that test. Instead, it assumed – without actually deciding – that the government has good reasons for requiring employers to provide their female employees with no-cost access to the four kinds of birth control to which Hobby Lobby and Conestoga object.

But even if that’s the case, the Court continued, the mandate still can’t survive because it is not the narrowest way of promoting the government’s interest. If the government really cares about providing women with free birth control, the Court explained, it could do so itself, at a cost that would probably pale in comparison with what the Affordable Care Act will ultimately cost the government. But, the Court pointed out, further evidence that there is an easier and less burdensome (for the companies) way to do this can been seen in the exemption that the government has created for religious non-profits that object to providing birth control. Those religious non-profits can opt out of providing the coverage without paying for it, but their female employees can still receive the coverage, with either the insurers or the government paying for it.

The Court’s opinion made clear that today’s decision was a relatively narrow one. It does not mean, the Court clarified, that an employer can automatically avoid paying for a particular kind of insurance coverage just because it has religious objections to it. Thus, for example, the Court explained, employers might still be required to provide coverage for vaccinations – an example that came up at oral argument – even if their religious beliefs might dictate otherwise, because of the need to prevent the spread of contagious and deadly diseases. Nor, the Court took pains to add, does the decision provide cover for employers to rely on religion to discriminate on the basis of race.

As we will show, Congress provided protection for people like the Hahns and Greens by employing a familiar legal fiction: It included corporations within RFRA’s definition of “persons.” But it is important to keep in mind that the purpose of this fiction is to provide protection for human beings. A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends. An established body of law specifies the rights and obligations of the people (including shareholders, officers, and employees) who are associated with a corporation in one way or another. When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people.

The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would override significant interests of the corporations’ employees and covered dependents. It would deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage that the ACA would otherwise secure. See Catholic Charities of Sacramento, Inc. v. Superior Court, 32 Cal. 4th 527, 565, 85 P. 3d 67, 93 (2004) (“We are unaware of any decision in which . . . [the U. S. Supreme Court] has exempted a religious objector from the operation of a neutral, generally applicable law despite the recognition that the requested exemption would detrimentally affect the rights of third parties.”). In sum, with respect to free exercise claims no less than free speech claims, “‘[y]our right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.’” Chafee, Freedom of Speech in War Time, 32 Harv. L. Rev. 932, 957 (1919).

Indeed, until today, religious exemptions had never been extended to any entity operating in “the commercial, profit-making world.” Amos, 483 U. S., at 337.16

The reason why is hardly obscure. Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community. Indeed, by law, no religion-based criterion can restrict the work force of for-profit corporations.

jerseyhoya wrote: People trying to make some money and run a business shouldn't have to forfeit all of their rights. The question of where lines get drawn then is a fair one, but acting like it's preposterous that it gets asked is kind of disconnected from reality.

Wheels Tupay wrote:So corporations can pretty much just say that they are into Scientology and say they don't believe in modern medicine, right?