Skip to main content

View Diary: Justice Breyer, what is a "closely held" company? (106 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  i am afraid. (17+ / 0-)

    i dont see this ending well at all. just another blow against women having some control over their bodies.

    what a bad year for women. even VA getting a democratic governor didnt help. mcauliff went right along with the women haters

    •  I live in a state which is pretty much controlled (22+ / 0-)

      already by a religion.  To give that church's members the right to force their beliefs on others is too much.  Hell, the largest health insurance company and hospital chain here were spun off by that church, and are still run by members of that church.  What if the insurance company uses the eventual Hobby Lobby ruling to say that it doesn't have to provide contraception coverage in its insurance plans on the exchange because of its religious beliefs?  Its already a non-profit, so it doesn't even have to reach the for-profit issues.

      We should be afraid, as ruling for Hobby Lobby is the beginning of religious persecution.  There was a very good reason for separating church and state in the Constitution.  Too bad the Supremes seem to have forgotten it.

      Hey, Republicans, the whole world is watching.

      by TAH from SLC on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 02:41:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm a little fuzzy on the probable results here (4+ / 0-)

      Assuming this goes as we all pretty much assume it must, I've got a few questions.

      1) Would this apply to individuals as well? Right now, precedent says that individuals whose sincere religious beliefs are offended by the way a federal law or regulation is applied to them do not get a pass on that law or regulation, unless it was created as a deliberate assault on their religion. But this case implies that corporations more or less do get such a pass. So, does this (probable) precedent give companies more religious freedom than individuals have, or will individuals gain such freedoms by the precedent as well?

      2) Will such a precedent more or less explicitly grant rights to religious companies that are not granted to non-religious companies? And doesn't that open up a bit of a can of worms as regards equal protection? Wouldn't a non-religious company whose owners simply don't like women be able to sue on those grounds?

      3) For that matter, WRT #1, assuming the rights of people are also expanded by this decision, are we not more or less explicitly granting religious people rights which non-religious people are not allowed to exercise? And doesn't this more or less explicitly create two classes of citizens: those whose religious convictions trump the government except in cases where the government's interests are very pressing indeed, and those whose lack of religious convictions means that they are subject to all laws and regulations?

      For my part, I am watching this with great interest. I figure that if Hobby Lobby wins, I will sue the government. My argument: "My religion, like that of the vast majority of people in the United States, is that of egocentrism. I believe that I am the center of the universe, and the most important thing in it. (Most people will not admit this, but all evidence suggests that this is the most prevalent religion in the US today.) Because of this, it is my sincerely held religious belief that no laws or regulations should apply to me. It is impossible for me to reasonably assess which laws and regulations the government has a sufficiently strong interest in that it claims the right to violate my religious convictions to enforce them, so I would appreciate a list of all of those. Absent such guidance, I don't see how I can be expected to abide by any limitations at all, so I will be expecting a preliminary injunction against the US Government enjoining them from enforcing any laws or regulations upon me until this case has fully run its course."

      •  Or at the very least (0+ / 0-)

        if Hobby Lobby wins, you sue because now you're a separate class of citizen than any woman you know.

        That's what I don't get. Does this SCOTUS think people don't understand what they're trying to do here? I seriously tire of the "closely-held" belief that we're all dumb as dirt.  

        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

        by lunachickie on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 07:56:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Not "some control" but "any control" (0+ / 0-)

      When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered -- MLK, Jr.

      by caul on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 03:05:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site