The Supreme court just ruled that the federal government actually can't massively overreach is power and force employers to buy contraception against their religious convictions. 

But apparently Ruth Bader ginsberg didn't get the memo. That the constitution including the first amendment does in fact apply to everyone. Not just liberals and their businesses. 

"The exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities," she wrote

I guess she forgot the citizens United case. 

It's quite a shame that our Supreme Court justices like her constantly and amply display their utter ignorance of the constitution. 

I guess she thinks the constitution only applies to one person but if you and a friend come together you lose your rights. 

How does an ignoramus like her get on the bench. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-exempts-hobby-lobby-from-obamacare-contraception-mandate/

Why the fuck would your employer be forced to buy you contraception!? My God! America, what the fuck is wrong with you?

I'm surprised only one person commented

Why are corporations treated as churches now?

For me this wasn't about the affordable care act, religion, or birth control, but the idea that an employer can dictate what you can and can't do with compensation you earn by working for them.

I see no difference between

"As part of being an employee, you earn health insurance, but I don't want you to use that health insurance to get the morning after pill"

and

"As part of being an employee, you earn $800 a week, but I don't want you to use that $800 to get the morning after pill"

The employer pays for both your health insurance and your salary, what is the difference?

Can an employer fire an employee for using their salary to get, say an abortion, if it goes against their religious beliefs?

It's my opinion that I earned the health insurance as part of my compensation for employment, and, just like my salary, my employer has no business in what I do with that compensation.

The employer does not "buy contraception," it compensate's its employees with health insurance. The health insurance companies are what pay for the contraception...

So your religious freedoms stop at churches do they? Just because you run a business or a corporation (which does not even necessarily mean you are a big powerful evil greedy entity, ma and pop operations regularly incorporate to protect their personal assets through corporate holdings) doesn't mean you should be forced to provide for those who work for you with contraceptives or anything else for that matter other than a mutally agreed on wage and providing as safe a work environment as possible.

Corporations are made up of people just like any other organization. Why should they be treated any differently in regards to their Constitutional rights? I know, I know because money right? Yeah Gates, Buffet, Soros they have more money each than a majority of the registered corporate entities of this country and they spend tons of money on political causes.

No corporations aren't a person. They are however, people.

Exactly. People, as in plural. Whose to say that everyone in a corporation follows the same beliefs as the board of the corporation does? With this law, unless you are at the top level, you must adhere to the religous beliefs of your workplace. It's not just the birth-control at risk here.

If a corporation decides to identify itself as Islamic, can they force employees to wear hijabs? If a corporation is Hindu, can they force employees to stay away from beef? If a corporation is Christian, can they force everyone to have a Bible?

An ordinary person cannot force their beliefs on anyone. This ruling is saying that if that "person" was corporation, they can.

Facepalm, @ the OP


All the amendment does is force business to pay for contraception SHOULD the employee DECIDE to take it. For those than want it and use it regularly, they can have it. For everyone else, they can continue doing whatever they like.

This argument may hold for a sole proprietorship or partnership, but not a corporation or limited liability company.

The latter two are separate legal entities from their owners, with their own tax id and legal status.  They are treated as such to separate themselves from the owners and protect the owners' assets should the company fall on financial trouble.  This is why corporations are legally people.  They are legally A SEPERATE PERSON FROM THEIR OWNERS.

The company employs the people, NOT the owners.  How can a company have any religious beliefs? That makes no sense.

If a company and their owners become too comingled (typically in a fiscal way), then the owners lose the protection of the corporation legal entity (called a corporate veil) and their assets can be seized to pay the debts of the corporation.

If the owners of a corporation want to further their religious agenda through the corporation, which itself has no personal interest in religious matter past what they may mean for its bottom line, then I would argue that the owners are comingling their interest with that of the corporation and should lose the legal protection of the corporation, and operate as a partnership.

I want to see where this leads, so tagged.