Skip to comments.According to the Supreme Court, Corporations Have More Religious Freedom Than Taxpayers
Posted on 07/01/2014 5:36:28 PM PDT by unlearner
For all of the non-stop wall-to-wall coverage of yesterdays Supreme Court decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobbyin which the Court ruled that the government doesnt have the authority to force closely-held corporations to violate their religious beliefsa simple fact has been lost. The ruling did not overturn a single word of the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. Nor did the Supreme Court prevent the government from requiring that taxpayers finance abortion-related services.
Pro-life activistsand Obamacare opponentsare cheering today. But when they sit down and reflect, theyll realize that they havent won a thing.
The Supremes endorsed the White Houses accommodation of Catholic institutions
On page five of the Supreme Court opinion, Samuel Alito spells out how the Obama administration can get around the Courts ruling that the administration cant force Hobby Lobby to offer health insurance plans with contraception and abortifacient coverage. The government could, e.g., assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives to women unable to obtain coverage due to their employers religious objections, writes Alito.
Ah, but who finances the government? Taxpayers. In other words, while the government cant compel Hobby Lobby to finance abortifacients, it can compel taxpayers to do so. Isnt that a distinction without a difference?
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Actually I think its more like food for plants.
With extra sulfur.
Its an interesting take, and I agree with it, but the writer is complaining about the state of the swamp after we drained the swimming pool. The fact is, Obamacare is here, with no opposition, and we are going to be paying for other people’s healthcare until it is reversed.
Protecting people’s consciences was vital. Now we can turn our focus upon dismantling this law with all its taxpayer funding for abortion.
Setting the basic precedent that religious views matter and that the All Powerful Government does not have the right to ignore religious views and bluntly compel payment for ethically questionable practice seems like a good start.
Sorry we couldn’t solve World Hunger in 5 minutes. Sometimes the task must be accomplished in small steps.
Superficial replies lead me to believe you miss the author’s point.
The Hobby Lobby decision is a win. It just does not go far enough.
Compulsion to contract is illegal. That’s the next attack, imo.
Ultimately the people of America have to invite the Lord back into their lives and hearts.
If this was a baby step in that direction it was better than no step at all. Now the question arises, what will we do with this new advantage. The questions being raised are quite important. Nobody is saying they aren’t. But we can’t afford to collapse into blame games either, the infamous circular firing squad. Let’s see how we can get from here to there.
We are all glad that Hobby Lobby stood up for freedom of religion and conscience. We are all glad that a little sanity prevailed in the Supreme Court. The point is that religious liberty and freedom of conscience are not being protected for everyone as they should. The whole Act needs to be reversed.
Nobody is saying the other matters are not important. But look at how it has the liberals’ hair on fire. If we can’t see the Lord slowly moving back into the picture, THEY can... and they are reacting as if God were Godzilla.
The precedent for the Hobby Lobby case was set in 2010 when the Judge declared “Corporations same as people....individuals”. How could they expect any other decision based on the 2010 case.
From the Citizens United case...? Sometimes the moves of evil set up their own nemesis.
And this does form one front by which the liberal atomization and stultification of society can be combated. Groups can have a will, and they can have a positive will, and the Constitution can honor the fact that they do.
Pay to incorporate yourself.
More undamentally, Obamacare purportedly fines those who don’t buy healthcare for themselves. However, they are not given the opportunity to buy a policy that excludes certain forms of birth control. Private corporations, however, now can.
I guess Avik isn’t aware that corporations are “taxpayers” too....
And with our Wilsonian tax code and Corp Law they are entities just like people. I don't think the left likes that they live in perpetuity, but they have been hoisted by their own petard...
That’s a Definite. And when a case does not have a precedent and one is set, just what could you expect as the consequence for the next case....Now, surely over time there could be other precedents set in lower courts making an outcome less predictable.... but here and now....not so much.
The supposedly Constitutional Lawyer in the WH should have anticipated this...but he thought they had to be on the bus of Women’s rights and under his thumb...including Contraception. A woman can buy a months supply for less than $10. and men can provide their own, if need be.
This is so ludicrous to hear Hillary whining over ‘gender bigotry’, what a wacko. The next 1 1/2 years we will have to hear those obnoxious statements from the left, as if women live in the dark ages, sexism, and GOP is supressing their rights. As a woman I feel exploited by people who don’t have enough integrity to pay for their own stuff.
I read an article today about two women at a Welfare office fighting over a cell phone, one of those Obama free phones....no personal responsibility any more to pay for anything and they want to choose what we pay for. Obama handing out candy and it isn’t even his...disgusting.
It was “liberal principle” Barack wanted (whether voluntarily or under compulsion).
But it struck a wall here. At least plaster, if not brick.