The Supremes

[cellio]

Dear SCOTUS,

Let me see if I have this right: A corporation that has a small number of shareholders, like a family, is a "person", and a corporate "person" can reject at least one legally-required expenditures it objects to on religious or moral grounds, and thus Hobby Lobby doesn't have to follow Obamacare's requirement to fund contraception. Got it.

A corporation, while maybe a "person", is clearly no more of a "person" than an actual, real live person, like me. There are legally-required expenditures that apply to me that I object to on religious or moral grounds too. So, dear SCOTUS, could you please clarify which of those I can opt out of? If Obamacare or contraception is somehow unique, please specify how. If you say that I can't opt out, why not? Surely you're not saying that, for example, Hobby Lobby has more rights as a person than I do?

(Quite aside from how you feel about any particular law, while it's a law it should apply equally -- or there should be a clear reason that cases aren't equivalent.)

Comments

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

I haven't read the decision in detail.

BUT: I think that their reasoning is not exactly the same as it is portrayed in the public press.

SCOTUS has already portrayed that First Amendment Rights can apply to corporations - in my opinion largely on the basis of free speech. It also extends wide authority to individuals to express First Amendment Rights.

I, as a person, can use my possessions to express my rights. To what degree is a corporation my possession? In this case, the court narrowly held that a closely-held corporation of 5 or fewer people can treat a corporation as their property for purposes of their religious expression, especially when the corporation was founded to conform to their religious principles.

The court also found that the US Government had a compelling interest in legislating contraceptive coverage under the ACA - but it only found that the government failed to do so in the most narrow way possible.

Since the US Government offered exceptions for non-profits that are religiously based, the court found that there was insufficient difference between that situation and a closely-held for-profit that was founded upon religious principles that match the owners/founders religious beliefs.

As a result, they ordered that the non-profit religious exception for contraception be narrowly extended - their feeling was that the governments goal could be adequately expressed that way.

I'm not saying how I feel about that decision, frankly, because I haven't read the full 100 pages or so completely and deeply. That's just the summary of the majority opinion as I've seen both in direct quotation and in summary by professional attorneys. And, as a practical matter, neither the Executive nor Legislative branches have worked out funding for this new extension of the non-profit exception, so there may be a practical impact.

[eub.livejournal.com]

Since the US Government offered exceptions for non-profits that are religiously based

-- which is the subject of lawsuits arguing that the exception violates the non-profits' religious liberties. If the Court decides in favor of those non-profits, I am quite unclear on how that would not knock the props out from under the current decision.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

I believe those suits relate to rather abstruse points, and won't survive challenges. Basically (if I understand the cases correctly) they relate to the fact that by SIGNING a document which says they won't offer contraceptive services, they set into motion means by which those services will still be offered. They don't want to "certify", since the sole path that might be open to them to avoid complicity is to not provide the services but not state whether they do or not.

I suspect that the final decisions will be that honest certification for what you are and are not doing is not a substantial burden because the level of complicity in the result is too far-fetched.

[eub.livejournal.com]

Well, we shall see whether they're tossed 9-0 or what. The majority does seems to be telegraphing its intention to toss them! Which is an interesting thing to do with a still-open case.