OK, last post from me for the night.
(1) Then why limit it to closely held corporation, if the decision maker (CEO) of a corporation ascribes to a religion that believes that some types of contraception violates his/her religious beliefs should not that corporation (despite what the stock holders voted since they continue to hold stock and thus agree with the CEO) be afforded the same rights as a closely held corporation in your standard? . . .
(2) The physical acts of living human beings also pay military contractors and I don't think we want to down that slope of whether an employee of a company who is a military contractor can be fired for not doing their job due to religious reasons related to pacifism and not killing their fellow man. . . .
(3) As absurd and cruel as this sounds... if the US currency was aborted fetuses then no, a company can still deal in trade under current law. It is up to the corporation to decide if it wants to engage in the aborted fetuses economy or the trade economy. Unless you were to propose that the nation remove itself from the aborted fetuses standard which would require an act of congress. . . .
(4) The constitution is at issue and the constitution doesn't give a damn whether it is costly or difficult to abide by it. The RFRA must be found to adhere to the constitution, thus, the constitution is at play.
(1) These questions get into the internal management of a large corporation, which is why the Court didn't address them. This holding is limited to closely held corporations because the parties before the Court were closely held corporations.
(2) No, let's go down that slope: an employee of a military contractor can be fired for not doing his or her job, regardless of his or her reasons. Case closed.
(3) Alright, the absurdity was my fault. But my point was that the law's not going to let the government impose real burdens on real people just because the government pretends it's imposing the real burden on fake people.
(4) Are you arguing that the Constitution requires that lawsuits against business organizations name every owner and treat the organization as an aggregate? That's the only way the Constitution would be relevant to what I said. (You may want to review this string of comments once you're sober before responding.)
(A) So I feel like that's probably the wrong place to object to the ruling. . . .
(B) First, there's the weird "maybe this doesn't apply to blood transfusions or vaccinations" bit. . . .
(C) But the part I have a particular problem with is the finding that the insurance mandate constitutes a "substantial burden". This is really indirect.
(A) I agree with this, and I'm surprised that Ginsburg and Sotomayor objected to this part of the holding in Ginsburg's dissent.
(B) I guess I can see your point if we're talking about a prudential decision to address the differences. In other words, maybe it would have been better for the Court to suggest some potential differences to silence critics who detect papist motives. After all, not everyone is going to understand immediately that the Court doesn't address issues not presented in the case before the Court. I've found Roberts to be quite sensitive to public perception of the Court--see his discussion of the proper role of the courts with respect to legislation in
NFIB v. Sebelius, for instance--and so maybe it would have been better if he had written the opinion.
In the end, I can't knock them for not having done that, though. There was going to be large portion of the population that found something to complain about no matter how thorough the Court's treatment of hypothetical criticisms.
(C) I also think the Court could have done a better job explaining what constitutes a "substantial burden." From the opinion, it's unclear whether it's the nature of the thing demanded, or the amount of the penalty for noncompliance, or something else entirely. I don't think the answer is what you suggest, though--that is, I don't think it's how much time is required to comply. Remember, Hobby Lobby believes that providing the contraceptives would (or, at the very least,
could) make it complicit in ending a human life, which Hobby Lobby considers immoral. I don't think they'd take much comfort in realizing that they're really just paying someone to pay someone to set up a system and handle payments. To illustrate why I think that's the wrong approach, imagine a pacifist told to execute a prisoner of war. All he has to do is pull the trigger--that's nothing, right? But, as I hope is clear, to the pacifist,
that's everything.
I feel worse for the people that bow down to their corporate masters like peasants. You don't want to use birth control? Fine, don't use it. But don't let yourself be controlled by your boss on your own private matters.
Apparently they'll only figure it out when some Muslim boss forces them to follow some Islamic superstition.
I'm not going to entertain the nonsensical 'fiction' argument again that fails to understand the proper meaning of 'fiction' in the context.
Soooooooooo reeeeeeeeeed. They haven't even named this shade of red yet.
Gah. It's glowing!
