Hobby Lobby - Scotus Agrees!

[1Timothy115]

Praise God! I stopped praying this morning and turned it over to God to guide the court according to His will.

 

In Burwell v. HOBby LOBby the Court holds that the government can’t require closely held corporations with religious owners to provide contraception coverage, though the government may provide alternative ways to OBtain or access coverage.

 

Text of decision.

 

 

[HappyChristian]

Yes, this is a good thing.

[1Timothy115]

How far can the implications of this go seeing it was stressed application to "closely held corporations?" Should similar grounds be sought for un-incorporated businesses? For example, the recent bakery attacks by homosexuals?

 

"Any company that has only a limited number of shareholders. Closely held corporation stock is publicly traded on occasion, but not on a regular basis. These entities differ from privately owned firms that issue stock that is not publicly traded."

 

"(1)

HHS argues that the companies cannot sue because they are for-profit corporations, and that the owners cannot sue because the regulations apply only to the companies, but that would leave merchants with a difficult choice: give up the right to seek judicial protection of their religious liberty or forgo the benefits of operating as corporations. RFRA’s text shows that Congress designed the statute to provide very broad protection for religious liberty and did not intend to put merchants to such a choice. It employed the familiar legal fiction of including corporations within RFRA’s definition of “persons,” but the purpose of extending rights to corporations is to protect the rights of people associated with the corporation, including shareholders, officers, and employees. Protecting the free-exercise rights of closely held corporations thus protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control them. Pp. 16–19."

 

For those who don't know RFRA...

Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 - Prohibits any agency, department, or official of the United States or any State (the government) from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except that the government may burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person:
(1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
Sets forth provisions pertaining to judicial relief, attorney's fees, and applicability.

Declares that:
(1) nothing in this Act shall be construed to interpret the clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting the establishment of religion;
(2) the granting of government funding, benefits, or exemptions, to the extent permissible under that clause, shall not constitute a violation of this Act; and
(3) as used in this Act, "granting" does not include the denial of government funding, benefits, or exemptions.

[2bLikeJesus]

I am Chief beat me to the punch.  "Closely held" is the key phrase here.  Such companies have very loosely defined "public" stock that are sold or given almost exclusively to family members, or friends.  Popular for making it very easy to transfer corporate ownership to beneficiaries upon retirement or death. They do not typically have any stock available for the general public or if they do, very limited amount so as to exclude any reasonable voting rights on corporate policies and business.  It has thrown a bone to only the mom and pop stores. 

 

Bro. Garry

[HappyChristian]

Ah, but it is still a victory!  If this can give a boost to having that fiat overturned - whether by actual repeal or by defunding - it will be best for everyone, including the mom and pop stores (which actually will be/are the hardest hit from BOcare).

[John81]

BO has promised to find ways around this ruling while he's finding ways to do what he wants with regards to immigration, all without congress.

 

The use of executive orders is threatening to become rule by dictate.

[1Timothy115]

I'm more interested in the broader application of the government's impression of ' religious freedom' with regard to this ruling.

 

I do want to make one thing perfectly clear. My rights of worship for my Lord and Savior are not in any way granted by a secular government, my rights are granted to worship by the Word of God, Jesus Christ.

 

So, although it is interesting from one perspective. We will suffer persecution if we take our right to worship from Jesus Christ's own words. We are not in the days of Noah yet.