![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
The Supremes
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.)
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.)
no subject
1. this was not a first amendment case. It was decided in RFRA.
2. Yes, you can be expect from some laws. Like smoking peyote. Or not paying social security taxes if Amish, and have only Amish employees that choose to not have you pay it. And it's because of RFRA.
RFRA exists because of the peyote SCOTUS case.
So, as much as I would prefer the reading offend law according to the dissent... Most of the comments are unfortunatly in accurate :(
Huh?
This doesn't make any sense. I don't mean it's a pointless opinion, I mean I don't even know what your opinion is. This sentence (well, OK, it's a clause) doesn't make sense. Please clarify, or fix your typos, or whatever. TIA.
Re: Huh?
Should have read:
So, as much as I would prefer the reading of the law according to the dissent..
Re: Huh?