Most lawyers seem to be social libertarians/liberals.



It can have a chilling effect, however. Look at how many court challenges there are to same-sex marriage right now, for example. So many people whose rights are being violated. That's a case where the court could have very easily broadened the scope of its ruling. But it chose not to ... which is typical of this court because it has no balls. #YesAllWomen

Special Etf/index funds exist, but that doesn't mean a 401k would have them.

It has no balls.


People calling it a "landmark case" are hyperbolic. There is nothing landmark about it. The court has already recognized the personhood of non-natural persons many times over, including under the RFRA. I don't find it to be very remarkable or surprising that a non-natural person who also happens to have a net income was also recognized as a person under RFRA. Anyone who didn't see that coming is a naive leftarded child.

As for the lack of balls, I'm referring to the fact that it provides no guidance for similar religious challenges. Yes, the blogosphere is squawking about how the decision may not be as narrow as the court would like. The blogosphere, however, is effectively wrong. Because the holding says that it's narrow in scope, any future claims hinging on broader scope will be challenged by citing the court's claim that it was narrow in scope. Ultimately, the court will have to clarify whether its decision is narrow or broad, effectively making it narrow since broader interpretations will just wind up back in the court anyway until the court effectively broadens the scope of its ruling. In short, blogosphere is wrong, decision is narrow in scope.


As noted by Ginsburg:

    Would the exemption the Court holds RFRA demands for employers with religiously grounded objections to the use of certain contraceptives extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)? 31 According to counsel for Hobby Lobby, “each one of these cases . . . would have to be evaluated on its own . . . apply[ing] the compelling interest-least restrictive alternative test.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 6. Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.

    The Court, however, sees nothing to worry about. Today’s cases, the Court concludes, are “concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.” Ante, at 46. But the Court has assumed, for RFRA purposes, that the interest in women’s health and well being is compelling and has come up with no means adequate to serve that interest, the one motivating Congress to adopt the Women’s Health Amendment.

    There is an overriding interest, I believe, in keeping the courts “out of the business of evaluating the relative merits of differing religious claims,” Lee, 455 U. S., at 263, n. 2 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment), or the sincerity with which an asserted religious belief is held. Indeed, approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be “perceived as favoring one religion over another,” the very “risk the Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.” Ibid. The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield, cf. Spencer v. World Vision, Inc., 633 F. 3d 723, 730 (CA9 2010) (O’Scannlain, J., concurring), by its immoderate reading of RFRA. I would confine religious exemptions under that Act to organizations formed “for a religious purpose,” “engage[d] primarily in carrying out that religious purpose,” and not “engaged . . . substantially in the exchange of goods or services for money beyond nominal amounts.” See id., at 748 (Kleinfeld, J., concurring).


In general, I agree with the decision, but I would have liked to have seen a broader scope decision that provides guidance to address these issues.

So in other words, this is an assumption as well and one that doesn't generally favor standard practices (by your own admission). I acknowledge that the author didn't source the 401k participation by the Greens (and the burden of proof would fall on him), so I am left with the decision to either investigate further myself which I don't really care to do since, as previously stated, I'm not very interested in the topic, or choose between a slight inclination towards either Forbes or you. i'm willing to listen, but you haven't yet explained to me why religious 401k options for businesses exist if businesses aren't allowed to ever choose them.

I also find the argument that it is harder to choose a religious minded 401k option to be an uncompelling defense seeing as how they were perfectly willing to threan closure and take the government all the way to the Supreme Court over small details of their health insurance. They don't seem to have any qualms with slight inconvenience on that front.

I also don't think that they maliciously or even knowingly put their assets in those companies. I find it much more likely that it represents a minor case of managerial negligence in terms of being informed. I just find it a rather ironic happenstance.

Explain your understanding of natural law first so there is a base from which to work from?

I am excited that this ruling will allow Jehovah Witness owned businesses to exercise their right to not buy any insurance plans that cover blood transfusions. I am also relieved that it will allow Christian Scientist owned businesses to not even buy insurance for their employees, but will instead provide bibles as medicine for only faith in God can cure illness. And all those Scientologist owned businesses? They will now be allowed to forgo purchasing plans that cover psychiatric care. Yeah America! LET FREEDOM RING!!

This case was decided on June 30, 2014.

Do you find it standard for management to opt out of their own company's 401k programs?You haven't provided any supporting evidence that they couldn't chose existing options designed to avoid such moral clashes.

Tell that to the inhabitants of the DRCongo who legally had to pay around 300% of their business revenues to the central government.

Well, the decision is right under the law. It's the Supreme Court. They are The authority that determines what is right under the law.

But it matters because the law can be wrong.

One is perfectly capable of debating the merits of actions outside of the letter of the law. In fact, the development of good and just lawsets depends on such public discourse and oversight.

Oh I'm not questioning the ruling from a legal perspective. I never have, nor do I even begin to posses the legal skills and knowledge to be able to do so. My argument has always been more personal based on economic well being and utility gains coupled with ideology, it has never been based around law.