SCOTUS

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

From initial reports, the Hobby Lobby decision wasn't quite as bad as liberals may have feared, as it limited the scope to closely-held corporations (and presumably, sole-proprietors as well).

I haven't yet read the opinion, but that part strikes me as odd.  If a majority of shareholders of a publicly held corporation decided to vote to not provide birth control, based on sincerely held religious beliefs, why should that not be allowed, but it is allowed for closely-held corporations?

Probably because in theses cases it's not simply a majority. Hobby Lobby is 100% controlled by people who support this decision.

They're basically saying there's such a thing as a for-profit religious organization. I'm not sure I agree with that at all. Could Hobby Lobby or a similar company sue for tax exempt status now? This could come back to bite the court.

OK, so let's pretend that 100% of GM's shareholders decided to vote against offering birth control, on religious reasons (I realize it won't happen, but let's pretend it did).  Why should the law treat GM differently simply because it's publicly owned?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

From initial reports, the Hobby Lobby decision wasn't quite as bad as liberals may have feared, as it limited the scope to closely-held corporations (and presumably, sole-proprietors as well).

I haven't yet read the opinion, but that part strikes me as odd.  If a majority of shareholders of a publicly held corporation decided to vote to not provide birth control, based on sincerely held religious beliefs, why should that not be allowed, but it is allowed for closely-held corporations?

Probably because in theses cases it's not simply a majority. Hobby Lobby is 100% controlled by people who support this decision.

They're basically saying there's such a thing as a for-profit religious organization. I'm not sure I agree with that at all. Could Hobby Lobby or a similar company sue for tax exempt status now? This could come back to bite the court.

OK, so let's pretend that 100% of GM's shareholders decided to vote against offering birth control, on religious reasons (I realize it won't happen, but let's pretend it did).  Why should the law treat GM differently simply because it's publicly owned?

If that impossibility were to happen, then yeah, GM could probably get the exemption under the logic in Alito's ruling, but as you point out, it would essentially be impossible for any broadly-held company to gain that level of unanimity on a religious issue.

[H. Ross Peron]

Hobby Lobby invested in companies that manufactures objectionable contraceptives:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Hobby Lobby invested in companies that manufactures objectionable contraceptives:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

So by the logic of Mother Jones, if someone does not devote 401% of their life to ensuring that every little entanglement of their business has perfect compliance to their stated ideals, they are hypocrites.  And that's not considering the fact that companies are required to run 401(k)'s with the financial interests of the employees being the primary concern, or that the employees ultimately decide which of the available options to invest in?  Plus, if they didn't offer those mutual funds because of those concerns as options to their employees, you'd no doubt be castigating them for denying their employees the right to choose their own investments.  How very "heads I win, tails you lose" of you.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And that's not considering the fact that companies are required to run 401(k)'s with the financial interests of the employees being the primary concern, or that the employees ultimately decide which of the available options to invest in?

Yet it is also true that companies must provide health insurance to their employees, and that those employees ultimately select their health care services.  If the link through Hobby Lobby's 401k investments is so tangential as to be insignificant, then why begrudge employees their birth control? What makes one benefit different from another?

Because unlike with 401(k)'s companies have greater flexibility in deciding what health benefits to offer (tho not as great as before ACA was passed) and also the link isn't as direct since the mutual funds need not continue to hold those particular investments.  There's also the fact that under ACA, an accommodation for non-profits was available and its existence was used to argue that there was a less restrictive means of accomplishing the government's stated goal of providing access to emergency contraception and IUD's.  Whereas I believe 401(k)'s and 403(b)'s [a version of the 401(k) used by some non-profits] have no differential rules on what must be done in managing the plans. so anyone who wished to make such a claim would have a tougher road to climb.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hobby Lobby invested in companies that manufactures objectionable contraceptives:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

And a lot of the stuff they sell was made by slave labor in China, which has forced abortions. Of course they're hypocrites to the max.

[Slander and/or Libel]

And that's not considering the fact that companies are required to run 401(k)'s with the financial interests of the employees being the primary concern, or that the employees ultimately decide which of the available options to invest in?

Yet it is also true that companies must provide health insurance to their employees, and that those employees ultimately select their health care services.  If the link through Hobby Lobby's 401k investments is so tangential as to be insignificant, then why begrudge employees their birth control? What makes one benefit different from another?

Because unlike with 401(k)'s companies have greater flexibility in deciding what health benefits to offer (tho not as great as before ACA was passed) and also the link isn't as direct since the mutual funds need not continue to hold those particular investments.  There's also the fact that under ACA, an accommodation for non-profits was available and its existence was used to argue that there was a less restrictive means of accomplishing the government's stated goal of providing access to emergency contraception and IUD's.  Whereas I believe 401(k)'s and 403(b)'s [a version of the 401(k) used by some non-profits] have no differential rules on what must be done in managing the plans. so anyone who wished to make such a claim would have a tougher road to climb.

Actually, there are mutual funds that offer religious-based investment only in companies that aren't ethically and morally objectionable to Christians. Among them, for Protestants, are the Guidestone funds and the Timothy Plan funds. There are also several Catholic-based investment funds whose principles would likely be roughly in line with those espoused by the Greens.

[politicallefty]

The Supreme Court seems to already have expanded the Hobby Lobby ruling. Per SCOTUSblog:

You must be logged in to read this quote.