No, it was a well-informed argument in dissent, as I clearly and unambiguously laid out:
You answered two parts of her dissent, I quoted two others. Leaving, once again, room for the suspicion that you answer the questions you prefer, and ignore those you find troublesome.
Bricker, the Dems in Congress are putting forth a bill to amend the RFRA so that the exemption only applies to religiously oriented corporations and non-profits. Doomed, to be sure, since the “pro-life” fanatics have the Republican’s balls in their pockets, and need only reach in and squeeze to have their way, but…
Be that as it may, do you support that effort?
In post 1065, you quoted two parts, which I addressed. Where else?
I don’t know. How will the bill define “religiously oriented” corporations?
If you understand someone, it’s harder to feel superior to them.
Let’s say the distinction is between “for profit” corporations. I believe that is one proposal.
Then I think I’d oppose the bill. To my mind, there’s no real reason a company cannot be for-profit – say, a Christian book store or a halal meat market – and still have a valid need for religious exercise rights.
Finally, boiled down, isn’t the only solution a non-solution? Tolerance, a willingness to muddle through problems that cannot truly be legally resolved. No set of laws, however carefully crafted, can accomplish the result of true religious freedom, which must also include the freedom to be free from religion, as you so choose.
The Supremes were at great pains to insist that their ruling was very narrow, as if to forestall any effort to use it as a wedge to undermine Roe V Wade. But are they naive enough to imagine that their efforts will be effective? Ms Ginsburg warns, and I think wisely, that “pro-life” fanatics will see this as a signal of favor, that the lower Federal courts will be sorting out the details that the Supremes did not deign to address.
And whoever loses will appeal. Of course, the Supremes have the option of refusing to hear the appeals, when (not if) those arrive on their doorsteps. Which means, to my non-legalistic eye, that the crucial issue of what “sincere” means may well be decided in a disorganized and mutually contradictory fashion.
Seems to me, that’s about all this “framework” means: punting the nasty football down to lower courts to wrestle with. (Since I am a radical lefty, therefore wrong, I await correction with bated breath…)
It will not work, it cannot work, it is designed to fail. Finally, ultimately, it will come down to muddling through on a basis of tolerance: whatsitoya, and Don’t Be A Dick About Your Shit.
Alas.
Actually, not at all sure she addresses the matter directly. Others will, or have, and the reader is free to amend accordingly.
Apparently so, but only if you are an employer instead of an employee. 
I see some clever laywers in the future (and bill collectros) turning all this right around.
If the company is now to be an extension and reflection of the people running it (to put it sloppily) then along with the freedom of the corporation to be religious (the relgion of the owners) and have moral vaules (that’s some funny ass shit right there) then any and all debts, liabilities, and judgements against the company are now applicable against the owners/boardmembers personally.
That “pierce the coprorate veil” thing.
But I still won’t give them one damn cent.
No, Justice Ginsburg never said that – and I would be surprised to have seen her say it. She is a very smart woman, and understands that Roe v. Wade is a constitutional decision, while Hobby Lobby is grounded in the RFRA, an Act of Congress.
Nothing in the Hobby Lobby decision serves as the slightest basis for overturning Roe.
More’s the pity, alas.
As I have previously explained in some detail, the question of sincerity is a question of fact for the trial court to decide. I have posted links to multiple court decisions which found, as a matter of fact, that the petitioner’s claim of religious belief was insincere. All of these predate Hobby Lobby, and nothing in the Hobby decision either strengthens or weakens such claims. The method of assessing religious sincerity in a claim is not new and not mysterious.
There are absolutely new issues that the Court left for lower courts to muddle through. But what “sincere” means is not one.
No, that’s contrary to the text of the laws establishing corporations.
What legal path do you imagine will occur to make your imagined scenario a reality?
By letting Hobby Lobby’s owners assert their personal religious rights over an entire corporation, the Supreme Court has poked a major hole in the veil. In other words, if a company is not truly separate from its owners, the owners could be made responsible for its debts and other burdens.
“If religious shareholders can do it, why can’t creditors and government regulators pierce the corporate veil in the other direction?” Burt Neuborne
I could picture a new class of corporation where religious goals are included even if the operation is for-profit. I’d expect such corporations to spell out in detail exactly which secular regulations they plan to ignore.
For this privilege, they pay double taxes. Cool?
Said pretty much that, but in your eagerness to scold, you overlooked it.
We done?
Throw in executing Scientology and disbursing their holdings to Doctors Without Borders, and I’m in.
I didn’t overlook it – the correction post wasn’t there when I began to compose my reply.
Sure.
Because the text of the law permitting incorporation forbids it.
And because nothing in any other law, decision, or regulation says otherwise.
Not one sentence of the majority opinion contains any support whatsoever for this notion.
So, in conclusion, exercise of religion by a corporation is a work without faith. All agree a corporate person is incapable of subjective experience, and therefore incapable of faith, and therefore this conclusion is inescapable. Exercise of religion by a corporation is therefore by definition insincere.