I see where you're coming from, I think. You've got some very libertarian ideas about how businesses should behave and at least you're consistent that every boss of any faith should be able to choose what to do with their business. I still hold to the opinion that because this was a narrow ruling that it showed the supreme court favoring one religion over others. Part of majority's opinion outright said this decision shouldn't extend to other religious objections other religions might have.

I said it before. I don't necessarily find this case all that big of a deal. It's not an atack on women or whatever. I'm more worried about the impact decisions like this (and citizens united) will have in the future. It's all building up to something awful.

Yeah, I have.  I think I have given a pretty solid explination why this ruling is clearly the wrong one legally, logically, and morally, yet have gotten zero replies from the individuals that agree with the decision.

A perfect example of what Bill Maher calls the conservative bubble.  Any clear, critical analysis that runs counter to what they want to believe is roundly ignored.

It is frustrating though.  I am a definite moderate.  I have sensible conservative friends and family who will listen to arguments, concede points, raise points that I haven't thought about, and generally provide an intelligent discourse for finding solutions to problems.  Unfortunately they are not the conservative majority (or even a large minority,)  the vast number of conservatives being as you describe.

The conservative radicalization is what has derailed this country, and I hope it implodes under its own ignorance soon enough.

Your point was that a corpration cannot have a religion per se and therefore they cannot deny people coverage based on the religious beliefs of their shareholders, correct?

Well for all intents and purposes,  corpration is not an "abstract legal entity". It is considered a person in the eyes of the law. A corpration can excercise human rights against real people (at least according to the European Court of Human Rights, the US Supreme Court and the South African Constitution, probably a lot more) hence Hobby Lobby's right to sue that its human rights were being violated as per the first amendment.

As how an "abstract legal entity" (which is not abstract and is a legal person not an "entity") can have religious beliefs, the US recobngizes corprations as organizations of natural persons (IE real, not artificial people) and therefore cannot curtail their constitutional rights when they act collectively. Therefore, forcing Hobby Lobby to provide contraception in violation of Hobby Lobby's shareholder's religious beliefs is unconstitutional.

And for the record, I'm not a person who thinks government=bad regulation= bad.

In fact, I support free healthcare provided by the government for all citizens of a nation in addition to tighter regulations regarding Gun Control and banking.

I just think that the ACA is a very lazy piece of legislation.

Bullshit ruling, though fortunately it was narrowly defined to closely-held corporations, limiting the damage.

We need MoveToAmend to stop this reckless Supreme Court...

Are you implying the Supreme Court was once not reckless? :P

The only reasonable way to look at it.

I do find it odd that the essentially ruled that religious rights are seemingly of higher importance than just rights in general.  But I don't think it should be construed to be preference of one religion. It could be any religion that causes you to have that belief. 

But if I were you I would not worry about this case to much.  The court has a long history of limiting freedom broadly and making exemptions (like this) narrowly

I have no problem with the classification of a corporation as a person, or the exercise of human rights by a corporation (free speech for corporations is something I completely agree with).  However, it IS purely an abstract legal construct.  There is no physical manifestation of a corporation.  It's existence is purely a legal matter, and should all the world governments come together collectively and say "Corporations no longer exist"  they would all immediately evaporate.

They exist purely in a legal sense with no physical embodiment, hence they are purely an abstract legal construct, which is also legally a person.

I have no problem with a corporation exercising any human rights, even freedom of religion.  However, in order to exercise that right, the corporation (which is a separate legal person from the owners) must have a religion to exercise.  It doesn't matter if the owners collectively have a religion, it does not transfer to the corporation.  Saying it does is like saying I am automatically a Christian if my parents are.  

This is what separates the religious organizations, like churches, from for-profit corporations.  The religious organizations are constructed for religious purposes.  The corporation is constructed to provide legal protections to the owners

If we are classifying corporations as their own person, then they must be treated as such, not as a mouthpiece for their owners.  If business owners want to wield their company as a tool for their religion then they should lose the legal protections of a corporation.

Forcing Hobby Lobby to "pay" for contraceptives (which they were NOT, they were providing health insurance as compensation to their employees,) IS NOT the same as forcing its shareholders to.  The two are not interchangeable (because the corporation is its own person.)  The corporation is the employer and the one providing the insurance, the shareholders are the ones who divide the profits of the corporation.  They are two very distinct things.

A million times this.  Big government overreaching yet again.  You guys are all looking at the small picture, but the big picture is this.  Why is ANY employer forced to offer ANY particular type of health care?  If you don't like it, opt out and go get your own damn health care individually.  One that covers everything you need and WANT.  F***ing ObamaCare.

Benefits used to be a way for an employer to tip the scales and get good candidates for open positions.

The government's job is to provide you with the equal opportunity to achieve everything you can dream of.  Not spoon feed it to you with a guarantee.  Wow, some people.

That's exactly what this is, agree.