Supreme court strikes down Obamacare birth control mandate

[General Zod]

Two things:

First, how is "closely held" legally defined for a corporation?

And second - I wish to clarify that in medical matters the vast majority of Jews do NOT object to using pig-derived items. Under Jewish law preserving life trumps the bias against pigs, which applies to eating them and not other uses. Even so, in times of famine or, for example, when Jews were deliberately starved in Nazi camps, the rules regarding kosher and non-kosher food are suspended, again, because preserving life takes precedence.

Muslims are the ones who regard pigs as unclean not just for eating purposes but for all purposes. I am not conversant with their stance on pig-derived medical things, though.

Maybe a Jewish employer decides to be a real prick and argues that he won't hire any males who aren't circumcised?

[Borgholio]

Maybe a Jewish employer decides to be a real prick and argues that he won't hire any males who aren't circumcised?

Yeah, that would be a real "dick" move.

[Broomstick]

Maybe a Jewish employer decides to be a real prick and argues that he won't hire any males who aren't circumcised?

Jewish laws do not apply to non-Jews.

Yes, in the old days it was applied to slaves and live-in servants, but that's different than employees in the modern sense.

[Elheru Aran]

Muslims are the ones who regard pigs as unclean not just for eating purposes but for all purposes. I am not conversant with their stance on pig-derived medical things, though.

Maybe a Jewish employer decides to be a real prick and argues that he won't hire any males who aren't circumcised?

Bad Zod. Bad Borgholio. You two dicks will report for Pun-ishment...

Anyway. Yes, the "closely held" bit is what's going to fuck the pooch very thoroughly in the long run. There's absolutely nothing preventing a corporation going "but our religion believes that the environment is just fine, so we aren't subject to EPA regs!", "we believe in honest one-on-one dealing between our workers and management, that's part of our faith, so we won't allow collective bargaining" and such malarkey.

If you want to define what the tenets of a religion are in order to see if they are "closely held and believed" by a company... you're crossing the border between state and church, big time, because that's what happens when the state has to decide if X fits within the boundaries of Religion Y or not.

The big problem with this decision is that it's following the previous precedent that decided that corporations are people. Any reasonable shred of logic will tell you that they're not. Business decisions are one thing; decisions based upon religious belief upon the part of others are quite another thing.

As for Muslims, it depends on how seriously they take their faith, same as the Jews or anybody else really. I imagine there's a good few products derived from pork in everyday life, such as leather and what not. I'd say the majority of Muslims worldwide don't really give a shit as long as they don't eat it (more in Western countries). This is mostly because they're not really aware of it, though. If they were, it might be different.

This decision is basically the SC saying "you can do whatever you want if you pull the religion card". That's no way to run a nation.

[General Zod]

Maybe a Jewish employer decides to be a real prick and argues that he won't hire any males who aren't circumcised?

Jewish laws do not apply to non-Jews.

Yes, in the old days it was applied to slaves and live-in servants, but that's different than employees in the modern sense.

Unless said employer sincerely believes otherwise. It doesn't actually have to be written anywhere as long as they claim it's a sincere belief; the Supreme Court doesn't have the balls to define what constitutes a "sincere" belief.

[TimothyC]

Anyway. Yes, the "closely held" bit is what's going to fuck the pooch very thoroughly in the long run. There's absolutely nothing preventing a corporation going "but our religion believes that the environment is just fine, so we aren't subject to EPA regs!", "we believe in honest one-on-one dealing between our workers and management, that's part of our faith, so we won't allow collective bargaining" and such malarkey.

Once again everyone here is missing the reality of the decision. I'll just quote myself:

The RFRA establishes a two part test for violating what is claimed under religious freedom:

1. Compelling Government Interest
2. The method of infringement/violation is the least restrictive.

Because the feds already fund access, and did not show that the current method (the HHS insurance regulations) was the least restrictive, they lost. In a hypothetical dealing with the EPA or labor a well written law is likely to be the least restrictive, and if it isn't then it should be replaced with a well written law.

But hey, the hysteria is fun to engage in isn't it?

[Elheru Aran]

The applicability of the RFRA in this specific case is questionable to start with. While there is a place for laws prohibiting placing a burden upon individuals' free exercise of religion, which may include ceremonies or building places of worship or whatever, the problem is that corporations should not be considered persons, certainly not individuals. Yes, the Court apparently thinks otherwise, but that's just fucked in the head.

Certainly the Hobby Lobby case isn't as nasty as it appears on first glance, given that the company seems to be reasonable enough in most regards (just an appalling misunderstanding of reproductive science), but what's to say that this decision couldn't be misused to the gain of corporations now that they have even more rights? And if you don't think corporations won't leap at the chance to make more money, you are a fool.

[Edi]

The current Supreme Court and particularly its conservative majority are a bunch of ideologues who have tossed all principles of consistency out the window.

There is a very good article with plenty of links to the example cases that dissects just how badly they have butchered the law in pursuit of their personal agendas.

I expect that in the future they will consistently twist everything to support their preordained conclusions and ignore any inconvenient evidence to the contrary. Conservatives used to whine about legislation from the bench. Now they are celebrating it.

[Napoleon the Clown]

The reason to give a damn about this decision, regardless of how specific it's supposed to be, is that it sets precedent. Precedent matters in American law. Technically.

[Phillip Hone]

Anyway. Yes, the "closely held" bit is what's going to fuck the pooch very thoroughly in the long run. There's absolutely nothing preventing a corporation going "but our religion believes that the environment is just fine, so we aren't subject to EPA regs!", "we believe in honest one-on-one dealing between our workers and management, that's part of our faith, so we won't allow collective bargaining" and such malarkey.

Once again everyone here is missing the reality of the decision. I'll just quote myself:

The RFRA establishes a two part test for violating what is claimed under religious freedom:

1. Compelling Government Interest
2. The method of infringement/violation is the least restrictive.

Because the feds already fund access, and did not show that the current method (the HHS insurance regulations) was the least restrictive, they lost. In a hypothetical dealing with the EPA or labor a well written law is likely to be the least restrictive, and if it isn't then it should be replaced with a well written law.

But hey, the hysteria is fun to engage in isn't it?

Saying it's "hysteria" isn't called for as RGB has expressed similar concerns.. If four of the judges think there's cause for concerns, it's reasonable (though not necessarily correct) to be worried.

[TimothyC]

Further digging has resulted in me finding something even deeper.

Because the 1993 RFRA (again, passed by a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate!) doesn't define what a person is, the case law then falls to the definition in 1 U.S. Code § 1, which from 1871 on has defined 'person' in us law as including a corporation, unless otherwise defined.