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]

We can debate what the thisness of this is, but in actual practice, the owners of Hobby Lobby claim a sincerely held religious belief, and no one is questioning their belief (within the legal system: LJ, who knows?)

I can't debate their beliefs for them, and do not wish to. Smart, stupid, vapid: who knows?

[eub.livejournal.com]

*Did* they, in actual fact, claim a religious belief with content about the behavior of zygote implantation? Or did the court in essence decide that arbitrary non-religious belief co-occurring with religious belief is treated as religious for this purpose? I have not read enough of the decision to know; have you by any chance?

[goldsquare.livejournal.com]

Press reports suggest that the owners testified to their shared beliefs for the record, but again, were not challenged on whether those beliefs were sincere.