Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Having just read it, I disagree. They seem to be saying that because previous rulings have conveyed certain rights of people to corporations that all rights of persons should thereby convey in the future. The seem to stretch the concept of precedence a bit IMO. I gotta call BS on this ruling.
|
It is not
all rights. The case is limited to religious rights.
This morning I reviewed the dissent. They say that because the court previously disallowed religious exception for employees that use peyote the court should continue with that logic and disallow religious exception for contraceptives, including abortifacients. IMO that stretch of logic does not pass muster. It is equivalent to saying that employers who choose to want sober employees must also tolerate murderers, which abortion is through the eyes of the instant class of employers.
It is a tough case. The majority explains that it is a tough case simply because of the recent trend towards prolific legislation. If the ACA had never been written the way it was then this case would not have been brought.
I look at laws as the software of life. The more lines of code there are the more debugging that has to happen for the software to stay stable. The court does the debugging. It is tough work and impossible to keep everyone happy. I do not envy their jobs when it comes to the hard work of keeping peace among different religions. However, given the laws they had to weave the peace through, I still think they got it right.
If we were a homogeneous society their work would be easier and less contentious. But we are not and it is not.