This ridiculous Supreme Court decision isn't about being anti-Liberal or
anti-Conservative.It's about being anti-American.This decision has invalidated the principle of the Separation of Church and
State by allowing religion to dictate the law.There is nothing more
anti-American than that.And of course, "Conservatives" are
@GaryOThey are delighted until they have surgery and get stuck with
a $10K hospital bill when they need five pints of blood and come to find out
their health insurance doesn't cover transfusions because the company is
owned by a Jehovah's Witness.
Most women "need" birth control like I "need" a vacation to
Hawaii because my doctor said it will lower my stress.As soon as the
libs foot the bill for my trip to Hawaii I'll help pay for their birth
control. Yes, its a loss for the liberals. And I love it!Hooray!
@GaryO,Re: "It's about being anti-American"...Come on.. grow up.You will be on the other side when the SC
decides that marriage can't be limited. Don't get all sour grapes
when they don't rule in your favor... but praise them when they do.The court is trying to be consistent... you should too.It's the Supreme Court's job to decide these issues (not ours).
They don't always have to rule the way you want them to... or they're
"Anti-American".I'm pretty much expecting the SC to
have to rule on SSM soon. And I expect them to show the same NON-partisan
logic (and make SSM legal). And I promise to not throw a "it's
anti-American" tantrum when they do. I suspect we will have SOME who do
though.What's "Anti-American" about it??
The Church of the Almighty Dollar, formed by corporations in the early part of
21st century, set about to write a set of religious tenets that give advantage
to Corporations over their employees.The great problem of having
corporate citizens is that they aren't like the rest of us. As Baron
Thurlow in England is supposed to have said, "They have no soul to save, and
they have no body to incarcerate."Corporations were given the
rights of immortal persons. But then special kinds of persons, persons who had
no moral conscience. These are a special kind of persons, which are designed by
law, to be concerned only for their stockholders. And not, say, what are
sometimes called their stakeholders, like the community or the work force or
Malarkey.We now know that insurance for all forms of birth control
are up to the owner's of closely held companies. And I would imagine that
a lawsuit is on the horizon to challenge even that. Soon, I predict, any
business entity can claim religious exemptions for all kinds of discriminatory
behavior.It is a war on a woman's reproductive freedom for her
employer to tell her that she can get her birth control included in her
compensation package which includes health insurance. If an employer sought to
rid coverage for that little blue pill that is advertised so much on TV for the
male of the species, we would have a revolution. However, it must give men and
conservatives great joy to know that they have inflicted harm on woman's
health.Shameful, just shameful.
CHS 85 - the ruling specifically called out the circumstance you state.... and
Justice Roberts specifically said that this ruling does not permit that level or
manipulation of coverage. The ruling makes it very clear that "life
saving" restrictions are not allowed. This is a very American
ruling. You have a choice who you work for. If you don't believe in the
restrictions your employer places on you, work somewhere else. If you
don't like the beliefs of the employer, shop somewhere else. If you want
to work at HobbyLobby, and know the beliefs of the management, then expect to
pay for that additional medical coverage yourself.I don't think
that the employer should have the right to fire you if you use birth control, or
are gay, or are of another political persuasion, so long as it doesn't
impact your ability to do your job. That is a whole different matter.
Don't expect a Muslim employer to buy you alcohol. Don't require a
jewish owned business to be open on Saturday. Don't expect me to reimburse
expenses for a sales person and his client at a "gentleman's" club
- not going to happen.
@GaryOYes it is so anti-American to uphold Religious Freedom. I am
so glad our country was not founded on such a principle. (sarcasm should be
implied)Yes I am delighted that finally a win for religious
freedoms, at a time when the government is slowly taking away our freedom. Open
your eyes, because a Socialist regime is not far in the future. Especially when
people sit back and forget the principles this country was founded on.Hobby Lobby already covers 16 of the 20 birth control options mandated by the
Affordable Care Act. What they had an issue with was the two different types of
"Morning After" pills and two types of IUD's.
Not an expert but from what I've read, Hobby Lobby decision may not mean
anything. Decision seems to be based on accommodations granted to religious
institutions. By doing so, government established that accommodations for
religious view points were not burdensome. Apparently, had the administration
not drawn those distinctions, the 5-4 decision could have easily gone the other
way. Of course, failing to grant religious accommodations would have set the
right into a frenzy. So in a way, this decision is the best of all possible
outcomes. Court based decision on law, not on constitutional right. Government
can continue to reasonably accommodate religious view points. The liberal base
and moderates will be energized for the upcoming elections. And there really is
an easy work around, the administration will figure out a way to provide birth
control to those who can't obtain it through their insurance.
It is hard to believe that this op-ed supports giving a non-person (a
corporation) more rights and power to the actual individuals. I understand the
argument, but in the case of for profit corporations, it is always disingenuous.
Hobby Lobby willingly supports forced abortion in China by paying taxes to
Chinese government and supporting the communist regime by outsourcing American
jobs to that country. They are also a major stock holder in the drug companies
that invented, manufacture, and distribute the "abortion pill." They
just played the Supreme Court for the fools they are and now they are playing
the public for the fools they are too. Meanwhile, they can laugh all the way to
the bank, because this has been about money as usual. If Hobby Lobby wants to
win me over, they need to change their business practices, big time.
More of the DN's pattern of grabbing any and all chances to tell you to
take sides."Liberals" never call something
"anti-liberal". In the case of this decision, the issue is that owners
can bring their religion to work, and try to coerce workers into following
it.Working women who cannot do better than low end retail jobs
generally are not the best educated, with the best resources. However, they are
equal American citizens.Anyone who understands low income people
knows that women will tend to sacrifice for the family, perhaps buying shoes for
Johnny and foregoing the cost of family planning.A couple of
commenters here show the misogyny of the Hobby Lobby owners -- sneering at women
who lose out on this important health protection because they had to take the
job they could get.Furthermore, it is conservative to encourage
birth control's easy access. Unwanted kids cost money for education, food
stamps, health care, and prisons.
The birth control options the DO cover should be sufficient.If you
need the other ones... you can pay for them. Plan-B one step is $49.99 at CVS
or Wallgreens. If you need Plan-B... you have already made a very
unwise mistake... and it's now an emergency and you're going to go buy
it over the counter anyway. You don't have time to wait for a prescription
so your insurance will pay for it.All is well... it's NOT the
end of the world....
Another 5-4 SCOTUS decision by 5 unelected Republican male lawyers.Nothing anti-liberal or anti-woman about that vote at all.
I wish one of these articles would fully explain the ramifications of the
decision. The court may have left the door open for the gov't to do what it
does with religious organizations and that is have the exemption and then have
the insurance companies just provide it for free (the insurance companies are
fine with this since birth control is cheaper than pregnancies on their end).
The Little Sisters of the Poor case is one that challenges this claiming
it's just a backdoor mechanism that makes the exemption in name only.
This decision will lead to more abortions. Happy now?
Seems to me that one way out of this is to get employers out of the health care
business entirely. Remove the employer mandate from ACA and get rid of the tax
break for providing health insurance. Employers who have any religious
objections can just not provide insurance, freeing up that money to give to
employees directly, who can then get whatever insurance plan they're
comfortable with on the individual exchanges. And yes, loosen the requirement
that insurance must cover this as well. Presumably there will still be some
plans that would cover the drugs in question, since there's clearly a
market for them. Is this a viable option?
@Frozen Fractals: "I wish one of these articles would fully explain the
ramifications of the decision."Both sides are too busy spinning
to actually clearly report the meaning.From what I have seen:The decision does not eliminate all birth control, only four specific
items - two drugs and two IUDs. All, it is claimed, cause "abortions"
rather than stopping fertilization. Medical experts are saying that is not
actually true, for technical reasons. HHS has already put forth a
plan to allow the women so affected to obtain those treatments, if needed. Meanwhile, Hobby Lobby covered all four items on their plan up until
2012, according to several reports. This would seem to have been more about
attacking the Affordable Care Act and scoring points with the extreme religious
right than any stand on long-held principles. As others have pointed out, HL
owners also invests in companies that make and distribute these treatments, and
does extensive business with China where human rights abuses such as forced
abortions and slave-like labor are rampant. Some principles, it
would seem, are more sincere than others.
If this issue is really about freedom of religion then why are so many
"conservative" commentators here lecturing women and taking delight in
their difficulties?Not one conservative commentator has celebrated
religion. However, all of them have laughed scornfully at women. So
please, don't you dare tell me that this is about religion. The cover has
been blown. Conservatives are merely interested in control of women's'
lives and belittling them.
Saying that because companies cannot be forced to pay 100% of contraceptives
that abortions will increase is absolutely incorrect. Hobby Lobby already pays
for all contraceptives except those that cause abortions. Of the 20 pills and
devices available, Hobby Lobby pays 100% of sixteen. They claim exemption for
pills and devices that terminate life AFTER conception.No woman is
denied the RIGHT to purchase prescriptions prescribed by her doctor, but that
doesn't matter to those who have no regard for truth. They want us to
think that somehow the Court has ruled that contraceptives are illegal. Any
woman can buy a prescription if she is willing to pay for it. No woman can
expect her neighbors to pay for her contraceptives. That concept is asserted
by the 10th Amendment. Contraceptives are not on the list of items that
Congress can tax us for; therefore, the purchase of contraceptives are left to
the State or to the people.
Hey 2bits –“Don't get all sour grapes when they
don't rule in your favor... but praise them when they do”You
should probably look up the meaning of “sour grapes,” because the
term doesn’t really apply here.Hey Cowspackle –“Yes it is so anti-American to uphold Religious Freedom. I am so glad
our country was not founded on such a principle.”The United
States was indeed founded on the idea of religious freedom . . . freedom of
religion and freedom from religion. And that is what makes the principle of
the Separation of Church and State so fundamentally American.Hopefully, at some future point, a wiser Supreme Court will reverse the
ridiculous decision of our Right/Wrong-leaning Supreme Court that has been
whittling away at our freedoms.It’s happened before. Look at
how Brown v the Board of Education reversed Plessy v Ferguson.History has shown that that little dark ages of “Conservative”
oppression in this country can be undone by enlightened justices as that
opportunity arises. Fortunately the Presidency (and its power to appoint SC
Justices) is likely to be in more reasonable Democratic hands for some time to
come (knock on wood).
2 bitsCottonwood Heights, UT"The birth control options the DO
cover should be sufficient.If you need the other ones... you can pay for
them. $49.99 at Wallgreens. If you need them... you have already made a
very unwise mistake... and it's now an emergency and you're going to
go buy it over the counter anyway. You don't have time to wait for a
prescription so your insurance will pay for it.All is well... it's
NOT the end of the world...."Yes, women definitely need men DN
readers to talk to them like a stern Grandpa. Of course, when Grandpa does not
understand that no form of birth control whatever is provided, then assumes that
women working low wage jobs have a spare 50 bucks after feeding the other
kids...Yes, women make a very unwise mistake when not refusing their
husbands during any time they might be fertile. And the husband is never wrong
to insist.Yes, using Plan B is not the end of the world, unless you
have a heart, realizing you created a potential life, and must now swat it like
Yes, this decision is somewhat 'Anti American' It provides privilege
to corporate entities as if they can assume a religious belief, and weakens that
right for individuals, to whom it absolutely should accrue first. The owners of
hobby lobby or any other outfit in no way had their religious beliefs
compromised personally because their company provided health care they disagreed
with because it was supposed to. This ruling is a blow against religious
freedom, and personal freedom. It empowers employers to make decisions they
should not be able to make for their employees. And it blatantly demonstrates
why we need a single payer health care system so badly.
I would sincerely like to know --- What about the woman who is
raped?The Victim of Incest?In danger of life or health?Will she be denied coverage because her employer is anti-abortion, Believes victims should make lemonade from lemons, or that
"legitimate" rape victims self abort?
Message to liberals from the SCOTUS: Buy your own birth control pills, period!
You can not force anyone else to buy them for you any more than I can force you
to pay my tithing for me!
This ruling was not a constitutional ruling it was a statute ruling. It said the
interpretation of this law broke another law. A law signed by president Clinton
in fact called the "religious freedom restoration act of 1993". So
please put the blame where it belongs if you think it was a bad outcome.
I need etiquette help. Suppose HL comes to my church. Would I address him as
"Mr. Hobby Lobby" or "Brother Hobby Lobby", or maybe just
"Mr./Bro. Lobby"? This business of the "beliefs" of corporations
is going to take awhile to get used to.BTW, are birth control pills for
ANY purpose still OK to Republicans, or could we expect their banishment by the
party of small government?
The issue is that the ACA *mandated* the specific medical prescriptions and
contraceptive devices. They removed the freedom of choice that was previously
available through the insurance market. This has set a dangerous precedent for
future incursions into our freedom.Surely Liberals who own companies
will want their companies to align with liberal values and practices. They
would be aghast if a conservative administration were to pass legisation that
forces them to use coal in their manufacturing processes.They could
then admit that ecology is their religion, and that pollution is a sin to them.
‘Why the Hobby Lobby decision isn't anti-liberal’========= What kind of a statement is that?as opposed to
this:‘Why the ACA [Obamacare] decision isn't
@ MountanmanI hate to tell you but, Justice Alito's remedy is
to have the government pay for it. That means you and I will be picking up the
slack for the billionaire Greens.
As I looked at the decision the first thing I noticed was demographics. All
three women on the court were opposed. Easy to put that down to them being
liberal, much more likely it had to do with gender and realities faced by women
that men do not understand. On this board I have seen comment after
comment declaring that women just don't need birth control, including one
individual who compared birth control to a Hawaiian vacation. Gentlemen, unless you have been the one to always buy and use protection every
single time in your relationship, you don't get an opinion. Unless you can describe, in detail, the full process of the female cycle and
the effects and risks of pregnancy, you don't get an opinion. Unless you have been a vocal advocate against women being coerced by husbands,
boyfriends, and others, you don't get an opinion. Unless you
are willing to listen - without comment or argument - to women explaining why
this is an issue, you don't get an opinion.
Liberals were all for freedom of conscience during the 1960s when they were
protesting against the Draft and the Viet Nam War. This commitment has
mysteriously diminished, however, when people began expressing perspectives
which are different from theirs (on abortion or same-sex marriage, for example).
This court decision simply means that liberals will have to start practicing
what they preach when it comes to "pluralism" and "diversity".
Religious liberty is not conditioned on whether the liberal community happens to
like a particular set of religious beliefs.
More Faux outrage by the Liberals. There are 16 other contraceptives
that Hobby Lobby's insurance plan covers. There are basically three
remedies for women working for Hobby Lobby if they're not happy with this
SCOTUS decision:1) Use one of the other 16 forms of contraception
that are covered under Hobby Lobby's insurance plan2) Pay for
the four contraception methods not covered by Hobby Lobby themselves 3) Find another employer who's insurance plan covers the other four
contraceptive methodsHere's a forth remedy specifically aimed
at our good, generous, Liberal friends: find one or two female Hobby Lobby
employees, and purchase their contraceptives...in particular, one of the four
that Hobby Lobby doesn't wish to pay for. I mean, if this is a "war on
women", you folks should be happy to step up to the plate and help these
poor, poor women out...right? Reality is, Liberals are only
generous with other people's money.BTW, Obama already has the
authority under ACA to make insurance companies pay the costs for these four
contraceptives. Obama and the Democrats have nothing positive to run on, so
they have to invent the bogus "war on women." Predictable.
RE: Kings Court "It is hard to believe that this op-ed supports giving a
non-person (a corporation) more rights and power to the actual
individuals."Well such is dismaying but not hard to believe.
This whole issue of "religious freedom" is about who will wield power -
corporations and religious on the one hand or individuals on the other. The
Hobby Lobby decision is massive loss of autonomy for individuals.
@ gmlewisSo basically, you concede that this ruling by activist
judges opens the door for both liberal and conservative and whatever in-between
to a use the powers of "religious beliefs" to do whatever you want with
this business.Want to be pollution free? Ecology is my religion
(this was the scenario you used).Want to pollute, same thing, my religious
belief is x...Wow. Is this what you folks really wanted? Talk about
opening a can of worms....
"I hate to tell you but, Justice Alito's remedy is to have the
government pay for it. That means you and I will be picking up the slack for the
billionaire Greens."That is because the cost of preventing a
pregnancy is a lot cheaper than the cost of having a child. This is a no
brainer for the insurance companies. Of course, the cheapest answer
is to net get into the situation in the first place. But that is a story for
another day. You want to play like adults, you need to be prepared for
everything that comes with that.
To those who say that this court case was only about a few birth control
measures that Hobby Lobby did not like.How completely, totally,
insanely wrong you are. The Court orders (we learned yesterday)
also apply to other lawsuits in the judicial queue that involved closely held
Catholic owners who object to any form of birth control. Employees in those
businesses are set to lose their all ability to have family planning mechanisms
covered by their insurance (which I also imagine they pay part of, since few
employers pay the whole tab).Plainly, simply and without any
reservations, this Court found that an owner's religious preferences trumps
the needs of his/her employees. This decision is a war on woman,
and their right to reproductive freedom.
I have to disagree adamantly that this is a decision about religious freedom.
This decision simply says that a business owner can impose their values on your
life as an employee. Religion just happens to be the vehicle for this decision.
To say a business owner can tell you that you as an employee
don't have the same opportunities as other Americans because they
don't believe in those opportunities, and then use the term freedom to
describe the situation is beyond ironic, it's deceitful.The
right has been fooled big time with this decision. SCOTUS has never been afraid
to restrict religious practices that were deemed illegal, and there's
nothing here that wouldn't allow them to continue this practice, except
this continues this courts practice of expanding corporate privileges.The expansion of the principle of personhood to corporations and fertilized
eggs is what's at play here. Not freedom.
I would like to expand on a comment made earlier by me.What gives
the owner of Hobby Lobby or any company the right to tell me how my after tax
earnings are spent? Since I have to pay a portion of my after tax earnings to
pay for company health coverage, don't I have a say in things? And
besides, health care coverage from my employer is part of my compensation
package. Apparently not. That's not the American way. I am
supposed to have a say over things I pay for.
@BobK,Re: "Of course, when Grandpa does not understand that no
form of birth control whatever is provided"... but that is not the situation
we are discussing. Try to stay on topic.They still cover MOST forms
of birth control. That was my point! That most are still covered. And they
you swing wildly into the "They won't provide ANY birth control"
(straw man)...What they don't cover (the morning after pill) is
used when you engage in unprotected sex and then regret it in the morning
(that's a mistake).They cover MOST forms of contraception.
Just not the kind that kill the baby after conception.I suspect that
95% of their employees will be happy with the forms of contraception they DO
cover. The other 5% may have to pay some out of pocket costs to get the type
THEY want.=====If you have an abusive husband... you
have more than an insurance problem, and you need to get OUT (not get new
insurance that will cover plan-B pills for you)=========Bottom line.. they are NOT leaving their employees with "no form of birth
control whatever" (as you falsely stated).
So I have a question. DOes this mean that any religious employer can force any
tenant of their religion on their employees? For example, the Deseret News is
owned by the LDS church, but because it is a for profit company they don't
have the same hiring rules as the administration of the LDS church, they have to
follow EEOC(can't discriminate in hiring based on race or religion) So does
this mean the LDS church can fire Deseret News employees who don't follow
the LDS church rules, or is this just about insurance. Essential, does anyone
know how broad this ruling is?
@2 bits"hey still cover MOST forms of birth control."Yes, Hobby Lobby was opposed to only a few forms of birth control, BUT,
the SC ruling itself does not impose the same limits, and there are 50+ other
suits pending that will be decided by this ruling, some of which would bar all
forms of birth control based on the religious views of the company owners.
That's not a straw man as you claim. It's a fact.Separate
this case from the ruling as a whole and re-assess. Read Ginsberg dissent and
@2BitsLook up plan B. It doesn't kill the baby, it's a large
does of regular old birth control. ALl it does is stop an egg from dropping if
it hasn't yet. That's it. If a woman has conceived prior to taking
plan B guess what, taking it doesn't kill a baby. It's not the
abortion pill(there is one, but it's not plan B). Spreading that kind of
mistruth makes people wonder if you are telling the truth about anything.
To "CHS 85" but that isn't a problem either because, according to
the JWs, there are artificial blood alternatives that they approve of to replace
blood. So, even if you need blood, you can get it and still be inline with the
JW religion.To those who think that this is a victory for
corporations, you are wrong. This is a victory for individual liberty. It is
against the religious beliefs of David Green to pay for abortions. He has no
problem paying for birth control. If you bothered to read the ruling, you will
find that it only applies to companies that are privately owned, not publically
@VSTBountiful, UTI have a comment to all those who do not like this
recent decision from the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court has made
their decision. Per our Constitution, they have the final say.Deal
with it and quit your incessant griping about something you have absolutely no
control over.12:21 p.m. July 2, 2014=========== I'm sorry, please forgive me, I thought you were
talking about the ACA [Obamacare].BTW -- Please don't be a
I love liberal tears. What they are arguing is that women, apparently,
cannot be trusted to control themselves, and are such sluts that they need their
employers to pay for all of their birth control, since birth control is a
constitutional right or something. Because, clearly, before 2008
and Obamacare, women were being oppressed by having to buy a pack of condoms
themselves. It's a war on women! News flash: Health insurance
is not a right. You do NOT have to have an insurance card to see a doctor (at
least, not yet... just wait until the liberals declare they know what you need
for health more than you do). You do not have to sign up for your
employer's health care plan, if they offer one. Perhaps, and this requires
some thought, liberals, --maybe a woman would prefer a cheaper plan that does
not cover birth control, because (and this is the hard part) that woman knows
she is a responsible person who is in control of her life and if she has sex,
will be responsible--and take care of it herself, rather than have her boss all
up in her sex life. Inconceivable, I know.
@ RedShirt"To those who think that this is a victory for
corporations, you are wrong. This is a victory for individual liberty."You are going to have to explain to me how granting religious rights to
a business entity thereby giving it power to impose "its" religious
beliefs on its employees and/or curtail the employees ability to practice a
religious belief contrary to that of the business entity is in anyway, shape,
form or fashion protecting of "individual liberty."
"To those who think that this is a victory for corporations, you are
wrong"Now that is about as silly as it gets. Mr. Green would
have no ability at all to tell you what birth control you could use except for
the fact that he is your employer. The ACA has a mandate that says employers
must provide contraception coverage. Both influences on you are because of your
employment. But for your employment you and you alone make all decisions about
contraception. So Mr. Green as an individual citizen didn't win anything.
Mr. Green as an employer won. Corporations won, and it is true that decision
continues this courts practice of expanding corporate privileges.
So conservatives you want the government off your back, you want a smaller
government, you want deregulation, you don't want to pay for someone
else's medical expenses, here's an idea that will do all of the above
and solve the whole contraception problem. Make all contraceptives an over the
counter item and you're done.Bobby Jindal supports it.
@ VST"The Supreme Court has made their decision..Deal with it
and quit your incessant griping..."It occurred to me that this
case would never have been filed if anti-abortionists had taken your advice and
just dealt with the Roe v. Wade decision.Besides, this is one of
Americans' favorite pastimes. If you don't like it, stop reading the
paper.@ UtahBlueDevil"You want to play like adults,
you need to be prepared for everything that comes with that."The
classic "double-standard response." Well done!Has anyone
ever noticed how the standard operating procedure of males with an authoritarian
bent is, "We have all of the authority, but none of the responsibility?"
That's a sweet position to hold. Maintaining it is one of the primary
purposes of some religions, including the Greens'.
"Until liberals begin taking that vision of tolerant generosity to heart,
they will fall short of what liberalism at its best demands and
requires."'Liberalism' has gotten side tracked by PC.
Everyone runs off like lemmings after a fad without thinking.My hope
is that one of these times when all the 'liberals' go running off to
the far right side of the political spectrum that they will return and find
their previous positions are now occupied by someone else, like the Tea Party or
To "my_two_cents_worth" Mr. Green is not a business entity. He is an
individual who owns Hobby Lobby. All of Hobby Lobby's expenses come from
Mr. Green.To "pragmatistferlife" there already are all sorts
of over the counter contraceptives, so what is there to do?
RedShirt"Mr. Green is not a business entity."The
case that went before the SCOTUS was "Burwell v. Hobby Lobby" not
Burwell v. Green. Hobby Lobby, the business entity, not Mr. Green was claiming
religion as grounds for ignoring the ACA. "All of Hobby
Lobby's expenses come from Mr. Green."Wrong. ALL of Hobby
Lobby's expenses are covered by profits from sales of craft items (most of
which, ironically, come from China). My original question to you stands.
@ VSTInstead of looking for "Roe v. Wade," look for the word
"abortion." I think you'll find it.
@ bits 4:33 p.m. July 1, 2014If you need Plan-B... you have already
made a very unwise mistake... ---------------------You're saying being raped is "a very unwise mistake."
The concept of "corporation" was devised as a way to separate and
protect the owner, any stockholders, and their collective and separate assets
from liability for any nefarity perpetrated by the corporation and its managers.
It was meant to create a wall of separation between owners and corporation
called the "corporate veil". If legal action were brought against a
corporation and a judgment against it was entered, the judgment creditor could
only go after the corporation's assets to satisfy the debt. If there were
no assets, the creditor would be out of luck. In order to establish liability
against the owners it was necessary to "pierce the corporate veil" and
show that owner and corporation were so closely tied that therefore owner
controlled and was liable for corporation's actions.This
decision shows that there is no real corporate veil between the Greens and Hobby
Lobby. They made it very easy for a creditor to collect a judgment not only
against Hobby Lobby but against the Greens as well. I wonder if the Greens know
how badly they stepped in it with the arguments they made in this case.
Plaintiffs' attorneys are going to thank them for this decision.
The mere existence of this controversy underscores how much we need to drop the
antiquated and rather bizarre practice of making employers serve as the means by
which people get their health insurance. I don't know of any social
democracy that does that. The idea was invented as a gimmick during World War
II pay freezes, as a way to increase compensation when raising salaries
wasn't allowed. There's no reason to put employers in the middle of
this, and the more we do, the more we will have problems where the
government's mandate conflicts with the employers' consciences.