Supreme Court signals support for corporate religious claims

[cali]

Before I post this Reuters story, I want to express how terrible I think a decision in favor of Hobby Lobby and Conestaga would be for the nation. This morning when I was listening to Morning Edition, there was a bit about how precedent strongly favors a decision AGAINST these companies. The reporter spoke of a case of an Amish man who didn't want to pay social security taxes based on his religious beliefs. Then the reporter spoke of the great deference this court gives to religion.

Here's the Reuters article:

The U.S. Supreme Court signaled on Tuesday it may allow corporations to mount religious objections to government action, possibly paving the way for companies to avoid covering employees' birth control as required under Obamacare.

During a 90-minute oral argument, 30 minutes more than usual, a majority of the nine justices appeared ready to rule that certain for-profit entities have the same religious rights to object as individuals do. A ruling along those lines would likely only apply to closely held companies.

As in most close cases of late, Justice Anthony Kennedy will likely be the deciding vote. Based on his questions, it was unclear whether the court would ultimately rule that the companies had a right to an exemption from the contraception provision of President Barack Obama's 2010 Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare.

<snip>

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/25/us-usa-court-contraception-idUSBREA2O11W20140325

The dozens of companies involved in the litigation do not all oppose every type of birth control. Some object only to emergency contraceptive methods, such as the so-called morning-after pill, which they view as akin to abortion.

[mike_c]

1. when corporations get to dictate their CEO's morality for their employees...

...then the employees' constitutional rights are meaningless.

[GeorgeGist]

2. Just who the fuck's work is paying for this health insurance?

And why the fuck isn't that clear to these supreme assholes?

[Rex]

6. No shit!

Was wondering that myself.

[OilemFirchen]

3. "A ruling along those lines would likely only apply to closely held companies."

Bills of Attainder are prohibited by Article 1, Section 9. Bad precedent designed to avoid unintended consequences.

[dsc]

4. A bill of attainder names specific people

while I would disagree with the ruling if it allowed these companies to do this, it would not be a bill of attainder in any sense of the word.

[OilemFirchen]

5. I'll grant that it's a broad interpretation.

Nonetheless, it creates an exemption for companies which do not belong to a protected class. All other companies are subject to punishment.