Hobby Lobby is in the wrong: Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan come out swinging against Hobby Lobby corporate religion claim
As Brent Kendall reports in the Wall Street Journal, Hobby Lobby attorney Paul Clement had barely opened his mouth to speak before Sotomayor jumped in to ask about the consequences of corporate religion. If corporations could claim a religious objection to providing contraception coverage, she asked, couldn’t they also object to vaccinations or blood transfusions? Kagan picked up the thread on corporate religion, noting that there are a number of other medical treatments that are not considered legitimate under certain religious doctrine, and asked if corporations should be able to object to covering those as well. Empowering corporations to do this would mean, “Everything would be piecemeal; nothing would be uniform,” according to Kagan.
Kagan also grilled Clement on Hobby Lobby’s claim under RFRA, an “uncontroversial law” that Hobby Lobby is attempting to use it to disrupt “the entire U.S. code.” Ginsburg noted here that RFRA passed in 1993 with overwhelming bipartisan support, and that to use the measure to endow corporations with religious rights “seems strange.”
For a more indepth analysis click here: http://www.salon.com/2014/03/25/4_things_you_need_to_know_about_the_hobby_lobby_scotus_case/
Posted on March 25, 2014, in LGBT Equality, News & Politics, Political and tagged Abortion, Anthony Kennedy, Birth Control, Corporate Personhood, corporate religion, corporations, Elana Kagan, Hobby Lobby, Life News, news, Politics News, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, SCOTUS, Sonia Sotomayor, Sotomayor, Wall Street Journal. Bookmark the permalink. Comments Off on Hobby Lobby is in the wrong: Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan come out swinging against Hobby Lobby corporate religion claim.