Thanks for the share Angel R. Rivera Anyone who knows me knows I take an extremely jaundiced view of Obamacare. As to the latest SCOTUS ruling discussed in this article, the issue of Obamacare is really beside the point. Steve Benen of the Rachel Maddow Show raises some questions and draws conclusions that initially occurred to me as being highly perplexing surrounding this latest SCOTUS ruling. FTA: ...courts have “long recognized the distinction between the owners of a corporation and the corporation itself.” Ruling that “a for-profit corporation can engage in religious exercise” would “eviscerate the fundamental principle that a corporation is a legally distinct entity from its owners.” Indeed. The court ruled that a closely held company, like Hobby Lobby, where five or fewer owners hold controlling interest, may in fact cherry pick on certain issues because of religious preferences. This brings up the following observation later in the article: If ”closely held” corporations can now ignore this law for religious reasons, what happens if a company also wants to ignore discrimination laws, citing their faith? The majority addressed this: “The principal dissent raises the possibility that discrimination in hiring, for example on the basis of race, might be cloaked as religious practice to escape legal sanction. Our decision today provides no such shield.” In other words, discriminating in hiring is still illegal; discriminating against the pill is fine. Why? Because five conservative justices say so. This seems like an arbitrary and capricious application of the law to me, as well. The final point is the the so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 was meant for individuals -- and, as is stated in this article, was never applied to for-profit entities. In my opinion, doing so, even for closely held companies, is a huge overstep, and thoroughly wrong-headed.
Posted on: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 23:33:11 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015