The decision is below for your own reading and edification, but there are a few things I’ve noticed from today’s landmark Hobby Lobby decision that are due noting.
First and foremost, how is it that an entity designed to protect individuals from liability and to protect their individual liberty and property interests when participating in the marketplace (a corporation), absorb the religious feelings and opinions of its shareholders? If the purpose statement for the Articles of Incorporation for Hobby Lobby read like all I’ve seen, the purpose of the company is to make profit under the laws of the State and the laws of the United States. If the purpose is not to perpetuate a personal religious belief, then the company is a shield, not an entity with an opinion under the RFRA.
Second, the Court finally solidified a long standing principle under the tax code (the s-corp and the K-1) that closely held corporations or small, pass through entities are really just DBAs of the original owners. If that is the case, then it’s okay to sue the Greens directly, since Hobby Lobby isn’t a separate entity from the Greens.
Finally, this is not a huge blow to Obamacare. This is not a huge blow to the individual mandate. It also is not a huge loss for women’s rights. It’s an arbitrary point of puffery and a grump-a-thon win for a company I’ve never shopped at because I’m not a 60-year old scrapbooking lady. Read the opinion and see for yourself, but it appears to me that all it does is extend certain provisions of the RFRA to imaginary people.
Which pews does Hobby Lobby sit in? Do you think it’s feelings get hurt when I judge their rhetoric?
Follow me at @DavidTDorer, listen to the David Dorer Show and Talking Law.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby by HuffPost Politics