SCOTUS

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

From initial reports, the Hobby Lobby decision wasn't quite as bad as liberals may have feared, as it limited the scope to closely-held corporations (and presumably, sole-proprietors as well).

I haven't yet read the opinion, but that part strikes me as odd.  If a majority of shareholders of a publicly held corporation decided to vote to not provide birth control, based on sincerely held religious beliefs, why should that not be allowed, but it is allowed for closely-held corporations?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

From initial reports, the Hobby Lobby decision wasn't quite as bad as liberals may have feared, as it limited the scope to closely-held corporations (and presumably, sole-proprietors as well).

I haven't yet read the opinion, but that part strikes me as odd.  If a majority of shareholders of a publicly held corporation decided to vote to not provide birth control, based on sincerely held religious beliefs, why should that not be allowed, but it is allowed for closely-held corporations?

Probably because in theses cases it's not simply a majority. Hobby Lobby is 100% controlled by people who support this decision.

They're basically saying there's such a thing as a for-profit religious organization. I'm not sure I agree with that at all. Could Hobby Lobby or a similar company sue for tax exempt status now? This could come back to bite the court.

OK, so let's pretend that 100% of GM's shareholders decided to vote against offering birth control, on religious reasons (I realize it won't happen, but let's pretend it did).  Why should the law treat GM differently simply because it's publicly owned?