The Hobby Lobby decision confuses me.

[flamin lib]

The reason to incorporate is to separate the owner of a business from the business itself. If I own a business which is incorporated the business can be sued and its assets seized; inventory, physical property,checking accounts etc but my personal assets cannot. My house, personal checking account and such are protected and separate from the business.

What this decision seems to do is to reconnect the owner to the business through religion. So, if I am damaged by a business because of some religious practice based on the owner's belief can I get access to both the business assets and personal assets? If someone is forced to remain pregnant after a rape (morning after pill) and complications result in severe health consequences can both the business and the owner be liable for those damages?

The decision also splits religious belief into categories. Contraception can be exempted for religious beliefs, but the decision specifically says that religious objections to hiring practices, other medical practices and basically any other religious objection are not covered. WTF? That's like saying water is only wet on Tuesday.

For supposedly smart people I really wonder about the current SCOTUS justices.

[RKP5637]

1. Yet another indication that SCOTUS needs term limits! n/t

[Fred Sanders]

4. And that electing a President who is not Republican will be even more vital.

[RKP5637]

6. K&R! n/t

[Fred Sanders]

2. I hope the decision will soon be seen as narrow, it opens the door, but it is narrow for now.

[el_bryanto]

5. It seems like their intent was for it to be narrow

But the door certainly seems to be open.

Bryant

[malaise]

7. As narrow as stealing Florida for Bush n/t

[MohRokTah]

3. I am certain somebody will directly sue the owners of Hobby Lobby at some point.

Some employee takes a fall in a Hobby Lobby then sues the owners directly claiming the owners pierced their own veil of protection when they inserted their private religious beliefs into their employment of the person.

[frazzled]

8. Excellent points ...

And the most confusing thing of all is how, now, in the twenty-first century—exactly 100 years after Margaret Sanger formalized the notion by starting the American Birth Control League (which would become Planned Parenthood) and more than half a century after the FDA approved the "pill"—the idea of birth control could become a hot topic in our nation.

Explain to me again how a small number of undoubtedly misogyinistic business owners have managed to convince the Supreme Court of the United States that the women who work for them may not have access to birth control on their dime.

What next, the reintroduction of stocks and pillories?

[JustAnotherGen]

9. Corporations Are People

Start from there. . . Seems like the SCOTUS did.

[flamin lib]

10. That's the point, if corporations are people why can't the people who own them be liable in legal

Actions?

[GeorgeGist]

11. The majority defered to the POPE ...

because they are all Catholics.