Abrignac wrote:The ruling, I think, has been misinterpreted as granting corporations rights. It really does not. Though it could be argued that other rulings have done so. The way I see it, the court ruled that since the law ran afoul of one's religious beliefs, Congress in essence created a law that infringed on the rights of stockholders, who are people, to freely exercise their religion.
I think you're correct in that's what the court thought they were doing. But there is something deeper here. The court has done a couple other things:
- It has ruled that people express their religion through their business practices. I think this is pretty key and a bit of a misstep. This goes against a lot of anti-discrimination rulings which have popped up recently.
- It's allowing ones religious beliefs to take precedent over any medical or scientific discussion. There is no discussion in the ruling over whether Plan B pills or the IUD are actually "abortifacients", as the HobbyLobby group claimed, the ruling accepts that because they believe they are abortifacients they don't have to pay for them. This is particularly disturbing to me, as it allows religions to create a false reality, and then absolve themselves of any laws that may interfere. Now, don't misunderstand me, in this case I do agree that the drugs and devices in question do what the HobbyLobby group is discussing (disrupt implantation of a fertilized egg) but the ruling is allowing this random group to draw the line as to what constitutes an abortion. It is dangerous.