"Caitsith01," a commenter at The Atlantic where yet another discussion of the Hobby Lobby decision is being held, asks some questions:
1. Why are corporations legally separate persons when it suits them (liability, tax, etc) yet "closely held" and able to rely on the religious beliefs of their owners when it doesn't suit them?
2. What happens when an even more irrational and extreme religion refuses to cover blood transfusions, women seeing male doctors, therapies that involve stem cell research?
3. Why does the Court not value the freedom of belief of the employees? Health care is part of their remuneration for the work they do. The Court has effectively held that the people who happen to own the corporation that pays these employees have the right to trample over the beliefs of the employees in relation to how they 'spend' their remuneration (in that they are not allowed to choose healthcare which fits in with their own beliefs).
4. How can a corporation, which is by definition nothing more than an aggregation of capital, have its "beliefs" infringed? If these religious business owners wish to have their beliefs respected, they are perfectly free to use some other mechanism, such as a partnership. If they want the benefits of a limited liability corporation, why are they not required to take the whole package? Why can we look behind the corporate veil when it comes to religion?
5. Where will the Court stop in its campaign to give corporations all of the benefits of actual personhood (freedom of speech in the campaign finance case, now freedom of religion) with none of the responsibilities (like going to prison when you break the law)?
6. Would the Supreme Court be ok with a corporation owned by atheists refusing to allow its staff to use health care at religiously operated hospitals? If not, why not?
___
Dana Milbank pretty much answers all those questions with this: The rights of corporations trump the rights of people. Oh wait. Corporations are people.
In its last day in session, the high court not only affirmed corporate personhood but expanded the human rights of corporations, who by some measures enjoy more protections than mortals — or “natural persons,” as the court calls the type of people who do not incorporate in Delaware. In 2010, the court ruled that corporations are people for the purposes of making unrestricted political contributions. Now, the court has decided that some corporations have religious beliefs, just like other people.
“The purpose of extending rights to corporations is to protect the rights of people associated with the corporation, including shareholders, officers, and employees,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the much-anticipated Hobby Lobby decision. “Protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations thus protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them.”
Alito’s ruling notably did not protect the rights of people employed by Hobby Lobby. ...Milbank,WaPo
Huh? "Protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations thus protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them". How does that work?
