Kaffis Mark V wrote:
Müs wrote:
Corporations aren't people. They can't have "Religious Values". Oh... wait. According to Citizens United, they are. And now, according to Hobby Lobby, they totally can have religious aspects. Because they're people now, and can go to Church. Or something. And its totally their business what sort of medical treatments their employees have chosen. Because Jesus.
It's not the corporations who are going to church. It's the handful of private investor owners who do.
Just like it's the handful of private investor owners who say unpopular things about whatever hotbutton conflict of social issue and their religion is in the news this week, and everybody on Facebook boycotts the corporation, rather than telling the people who own it they're Neanderthal nitwits.
They know they're neanderthal nitwits. AND THEY DON'T CARE. Telling them they are does nothing. They have the money, and now they have the court's backing.
Another victory for Church sponsored tyranny.
Ginsburg has the dissent correct.
Quote:
"Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."
"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
"The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."