Generally I compose my posts very quickly here, but I don’t know where to begin with the entire Hobby Lobby fiasco. Today the Supreme Court heard arguments in the decision about whether business owners can be compelled by law against their religious beliefs to pay for contraceptive services as a part of employee health care coverage. The fact that this has even reached the Supreme Court puzzles me.
Where exactly are we in history? It’s spooky. It gives me a headache.
Ultimately this is all about politics, not religion, anyway. Tell me exactly how Hobby Lobby has a religion in the first place. How is Hobby Lobby harmed? Can we say that Hobby Lobby is “sincere” or just trying to use a claim on religion to fight a law it might not like — as if it were a person! — for political reasons?
This probably is beyond the scope of the arguments and not germane, but if we are going to protect corporations that act at the whim of its human owners, can we then sue against the personal assets of those owners if that corporation harms us? We seem to be conflating people and corporations, granting them both human rights. It seems to me that we would be allowing owners to cherry pick the law to serve them as it is convenient. Use the law to protect (and project) the business’s presumed religious rights — melding the owners’ beliefs with the corporation — but then separating the owners from the corporation when not doing so puts the owners at risk. Is the corporation synonymous with the owners or not? Which is it going to be?
The S Corp is a legal tool or instrument that has enabled a great deal of economic growth and opportunity. It is another example of what government does right, providing structure and protection to an enormous array of business. There’s absolutely no reason why the beliefs and practices of religion should be involved in anyway. Where will this confusion of subject human interests with objective legal practice end?
It gives me a headache.