Which means there is no such thing as private property rights anytime someone engages in public business or public activity if the government so-chooses and decrees.
Which means if you own a business and you refuse to provide services and benefits for those things which violate your conscience, religion and principles, too damn bad - because if you want to conduct business, you have no rights.
That is the entire issue.
---
Springfield Reformer: Well, no. It's the quid pro quo that Talisker is addressing. The fed grants you protection from suit as a private person if you incorporate. That means they are offering to protect your personal property from theft by lawyers. So it's really a kind of protection racket. The problem is, as has been pointed out, in such deals the extortionist has the tactical advantage, and they'd like to keep it that way. Hard to run a dictatorship without the threat of loss to drive people where they otherwise wouldn't ever go.
OTOH, the very reason the left is so fried about Citizens United is not only because it liberated money for their natural adversaries, but also because it blurred those lines between human and corporation, recognizing the fact that corporations are necessarily always composed of humans and it is problematic to deny them real human rights such as free political speech simply because they have taken shelter under a legal fiction created by the government. So it's hard to picture how they could ignore that fresh precedent.
So it will be interesting to see what SCOTUS does with this. I'm not confident to make a prediction either way. I do have a sense that things are not quite normal, and some sort of backchannel thuggery may influence this outcome more than we would like.
---
INVAR, I "share" none of this - I'm just explaining how it works. You wouldn't get mad at a mechanic who explains that the $500 part that burned out on your car was designed to burn out by the factory, so you would have to regularly replace it - right? I'm just the messenger here.
As Springfield Reformer said, it's a protection racket. Yet the irony is that if you didn't join it AND the Courts would recognize that you didn't join it (which they don't), you'd be safer than those who did join it - because you'd be outside of the corporate laws lawyers could use to sue you. Instead, lawsuits would have to follow common law, which takes into account human rights.
Quite frankly, I don't have the solution. In a sense, the only real solution can come out of tens of millions of people being aware of the problem, and working out the solution because they know the problem exists. So the REAL problem is how to let everyone know that this is the problem, and I don't have an answer for that. First of all, people don't even want to hear that this is the problem, then they'll argue with you, then they'll ignore it. Then any other avenue you can take, including the Net, will dry up because we literally live in a corporate society, so there is no money or status in pursuing this. I know I sound negative, but I'm not a kid anymore and my eyes aren't shiny with "hope" - and no, I don't consider that a loss.
The ONLY people who would be interested in this issue are those who care about freedom under the original Constitution, but those people, of course, get no standing anywhere. And, it must be said, a lot of them are crazy or delusional with sovereignty arguments that contradict themselves. I understand their passion, but they don't help anyone understand anything - and understanding, more than anything else, is needed. Not revolution or post-apocalyptic prepper fantasies.
This country was founded with faith in God's protection. It's come down to needing exactly that, I think. It might sound old-fashioned, but we all need to pray - hard.
My bad. I thought you were taking the argument the Obama regime and it's sycophants took in arguing this case. I find no validity to the argument because as SR pointed out - corporations and businesses are made up of PEOPLE who do have rights.