Journal Marxist Hacker 42's Journal: Why the Hobby Lobby Decision is good for the Left Wing 14
It means, in the end that corporations, at least until they are sold out to the stock market, have to actually be ethical and live by the ethics of the entrepreneurs who created them.
I suspect not. (Score:2)
Nice optimism. As soon as it's convenient to separate the corporation from its owners (eg, when it gets sued) suddenly the soul's responsibility for the corporation's actions will evaporate again.
Also, I'm not entirely thrilled with Alito leaving open the government to decide what beliefs are "sincerely held".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Smart quips and Burma Shave aside, I feel that neither you nor I are qualified for this particular Judgeship.
Re: (Score:1)
What utter nonsense (Score:1)
Judge the tree by the fruit, if judge you must.
Horrible idea. That's how Progressives think. They only look at the fruit and not look at the cost of planting that tree.
To be a Progressive is to be judged on either (a) Motive: "Well, we went in with what we will tell you were the best of intentions" or (b) Fragmentary evidence: "If it helped Just One Person. . ."
"Progress" == "Neo-aristocracy" == "Shut up, peasant"
Re: (Score:1)
Clinging as I do to an independent, fundamentalist creed, I'm kind of liberated from all that post-Biblical org chart business.
Re: (Score:2)
The Church has always been a group of progressives. In fact, the only real progress we've ever made is due to her morality, and when that morality is ignored, it's regress.
Re: (Score:1)
I think the next step will be more interesting (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
what happens if no insurance companies want to offer a plan that does that?
The solution that Alito cited that was in place for religious non-profit and church organizations was for the insurance company to be required to pay for the drugs out of their own pockets and establish a separate pool of money for doing so, that the religious institutions would not pay into. The government considered this to be acceptable because the drugs are cheaper than pregnancy care so the insurance company would save money.
Re: (Score:2)
what happens if no insurance companies want to offer a plan that does that?
The solution that Alito cited that was in place for religious non-profit and church organizations was for the insurance company to be required to pay for the drugs out of their own pockets and establish a separate pool of money for doing so, that the religious institutions would not pay into. The government considered this to be acceptable because the drugs are cheaper than pregnancy care so the insurance company would save money.
I would think that the insurance companies would object to that as it interferes with their right to unlimited profit. Forcing insurance companies to pay for something is clearly "Un-American" as we have learned since 2001 (and possibly earlier). Even if it comes under the guise of helping the insurance companies to "save money" they could save even more money by not paying for it at all and forcing the customers to pay for it instead.
However I would think that the insurance companies would even more