General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Hobby Lobby decision confuses me.
The reason to incorporate is to separate the owner of a business from the business itself. If I own a business which is incorporated the business can be sued and its assets seized; inventory, physical property,checking accounts etc but my personal assets cannot. My house, personal checking account and such are protected and separate from the business.
What this decision seems to do is to reconnect the owner to the business through religion. So, if I am damaged by a business because of some religious practice based on the owner's belief can I get access to both the business assets and personal assets? If someone is forced to remain pregnant after a rape (morning after pill) and complications result in severe health consequences can both the business and the owner be liable for those damages?
The decision also splits religious belief into categories. Contraception can be exempted for religious beliefs, but the decision specifically says that religious objections to hiring practices, other medical practices and basically any other religious objection are not covered. WTF? That's like saying water is only wet on Tuesday.
For supposedly smart people I really wonder about the current SCOTUS justices.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)RKP5637
(67,112 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)But the door certainly seems to be open.
Bryant
malaise
(269,219 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Some employee takes a fall in a Hobby Lobby then sues the owners directly claiming the owners pierced their own veil of protection when they inserted their private religious beliefs into their employment of the person.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)And the most confusing thing of all is how, now, in the twenty-first centuryexactly 100 years after Margaret Sanger formalized the notion by starting the American Birth Control League (which would become Planned Parenthood) and more than half a century after the FDA approved the "pill"the idea of birth control could become a hot topic in our nation.
Explain to me again how a small number of undoubtedly misogyinistic business owners have managed to convince the Supreme Court of the United States that the women who work for them may not have access to birth control on their dime.
What next, the reintroduction of stocks and pillories?
JustAnotherGen
(31,937 posts)Start from there. . . Seems like the SCOTUS did.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)Actions?
GeorgeGist
(25,324 posts)because they are all Catholics.