![]() ![]() Yes, but there has to be reasoning for where to draw a line, or else the impact of a decision can be much broader than intended. Isn't the nature of legal reasoning that there will be separate sets of reasons for similar but different circumstances? The Timothy Plan and the Ave Maria Fund, for example, screen for companies that manufacture abortion drugs, support Planned Parenthood, or engage in embryonic stem cell research.Īpparently, Hobby Lobby was either not aware that these options existed (kind of hard to believe for a company willing to take a case to the Supreme Court over their religious beliefs) or simply didn’t care. To avoid supporting companies that manufacture abortion drugs-or products such as alcohol or pornography-religious investors can turn to a cottage industry of mutual funds that screen out stocks that religious people might consider morally objectionable. Not only does Hobby Lobby have an obligation to know what their sponsored 401(k) is investing in for the benefit of their employees, it turns out that there are ample opportunities for the retirement fund to invest in mutual funds that are specifically screened to avoid any religiously offensive products. ![]() You may be thinking that it must have been beyond Hobby Lobby’s reasonable abilities to know what companies were being invested in by the mutual funds purchased for the Hobby Lobby 401(k) plans-but I am afraid you would be wrong. More on Hobby Lobby's retirement plan hypocrisy that should end any derails on this issue: It also really, REALLY pisses me off that, as an adult, I feel a need to have someone else stand up for me like that because, as a woman, I won't be taken seriously and if I weren't fortunate enough to have a man who is so fantastic in my life I'd feel even more vulnerable and that is fucking goddamn bullshit. This comment his from my husband and I think he's right and amazing and wonderful and strong and brave and it makes me really glad I have him for support and to be on my side and take care of me when it feels like I'm under siege from so many directions (corporations, government, individuals). Given the religious make up of the majority, and the fact that they explicitly allow that other, different religious objections might not fly, it's hard to escape the conclusion that this has as much to do with the fact that has as much to do with the members of the majority sharing the religious beliefs of the people who run Hobby Lobby as the as anything else. Once HHS allowed that non-profit corporations to take religious exemptions, they basically opening the door to for-profit corporations taking a religious exemption as well. But Kennedy can play umpire's rules so long as he's around.īut like McCullen's "buffer zone" finding it does seem like HHS opened the door for a "not narrowly tailored" decision by being so inconsistent. I think she has the right of it, though if Kennedy is around for the next case maybe not: Alito presents the idea that disagreements about a corporation's "religious exercise" would be handled like any other matter, by the board of directors according to their articles of incorporation and relevant state law. Little doubt that RFRA claims will proliferate, for the Court’s expansive notion of corporate personhood-combined with its other errors in construing RFRA-invites for-profit entities to seek religion-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faith." "Although the Court attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations, its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private. He claims this covers "closely held" corporations where stock is not publicly traded, which is rare. Kennedy is the swing vote and he denies that this would apply as broadly as Ginsburg worried.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |