I think that Ginsberg is right.

[Vattel]

Ginsberg: "In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs. Compelling governmental interests in uniform compliance with the law, and disadvantages that religion-based opt-outs impose on others, hold no sway, the Court decides, at least when there is a “less restrictive alternative.” And such an alternative, the Court suggests, there always will be whenever, in lieu of tolling an enterprise claiming a religion-based exemption, the government,
i.e., the general public, can pick up the tab."

I don't agree with everything Ginsberg says in her dissent, but I agree with her that the decision in the Hobby Lobby case has "startling breadth." The owners of Hobby Lobby believe that because "human life begins at conception" (whatever that means), it is immoral to destroy a newly fertilized human ovum. They also believe that immorality is a sin against God. And so their belief that destroying a newly fertilized ovum is a sin against God has the status of a "religious belief" and gains all of the protections of the RRFA. Of course, that means that anyone who believes that some behavior is immoral and also believes that immorality is a sin against God now has a religious belief that the behavior they object to is a sin against God, and that belief is protected under the RRFA. That is way, way broad.

[Vattel]

1. I knew this post would sink like a lead balloon,

but I couldn't resist making a minor point in defense of Ginsberg's claim.

[BootinUp]

2. Its not a minor point.

I was raised catholic and I am stunned by the decision. I was used to the executive and legislative religious wackjobs we have endured, but this is the first time I can honestly say the USSC has gone religious wackjob on us (in my lifetime anyways). I see this case as ranking up there in all time bad court opinions.

[Swede Atlanta]

3. There are so many, many things wrong with this decision.........

1. All 5 MALE Catholic justices voted in favor of a position held by their Church. They should have recused themselves from the case but we know Clarence Thomas hasn't and he has ruled with the majority in several cases that directly affect the financial fortunes of he and his wife.

2. While the Court says this is limited to Contraception and only for closely held corporations they have created a slippery slope that is worse than pouring wesson oil in a bathtub.....

I believe more than 80% of businesses in America are classified as closely-held corporations (i.e. where ownership is primarily in a limited number of shareholders, usually individuals that are related by blood or marriage).

They will have a hard time coming up with a reason not to recognize the right of a "closely-held" corporation that has a religious belief against transfusions (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses) to be exempted from the blood transfusion provision in the ACA. They can't just carve one thing out and say it's okay to deny coverage for that service but not another if both companies have these "sincerely held beliefs".

3. Despite the fact the Court says this does not open the doors to generally applicable laws, why not? There is an Equal Protection provision in the U.S. Constitution that says two similarly situated persons cannot be treated differently under the law. Well HL maintains they are morally opposed to certain birth control medications/procedures for religious reasons and the Court says they don't have to comply with that portion of the law. The Court will not be able to withstand in future someone saying that it is their religious belief that all gay people are of the devil and their religion says they must resist them and allowing them to discriminate in employment, housing, etc. even if there is a local or state non-discrimination law.

The slippery slope is worse than anything I have seen in my lifetime. You watch......

[Vattel]

7. Very good points. I agree with you that the equal protection clause makes the slope really slippery.

[uponit7771]

4. It's not sinking per se... I think people are still in shock... I am... this is one of the worst

[etherealtruth]

5. The justices understand full well that there isn't a narrow scope

They have set a precedent and it will be applied not just to birth control, not just to healthcare ... but a wide range of things we cannot fully conceive.

Clearly corporate religious belief are more important than individual rights and beliefs.

[tclambert]

6. Well, then I want to withhold a portion of my employees' wages so they don't spend it on booze.

'Cause I think that's a sin.

I don't actually have any employees, but if I did, wouldn't this reasoning work?