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]

The decision specifically said it could not be extended like that.

[grouchyoldcoot.livejournal.com]

How so? Can you point me to the element of the decision that forbids it? I'm sorry; I've been lazy and have only read summaries.

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

The decision can be found here (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf).

"This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and
should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g.,
for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice."

[grouchyoldcoot.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that "should not be understood that... must necessarily fall" does not preclude the possibility that they *may* fall. That's going to take further Supreme Court cases to settle, and will certainly invite litigation. Certainly they've given carte blanche to corporations to not provide contraceptives, and there is a financial incentive to do so. "Sincerely held belief" will obviously have to be litigated. What non-slippery definition can there be short of recognizing an official corporate declaration of belief?

But the really big question for me is, doesn't this pierce the corporate veil? Owners of corporate stock cannot be held criminally responsible for actions of the corporation because of that veil, right? If a corporation can channel its owner's religion, doesn't it also channel their moral responsibility?

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

Opinion: a great part of this decision, as I read it, is about the unfairness of withholding the nonprofit exemption from a tightly held religiously founded for profit. I don't read the case as saying "anything goes if you believe". I read it as saying very narrowly that a for profit corporation like this one also qualifies.

The Federal government doesn't have other exceptions in this law.