Today's Supreme Court ruling is, as it was expected to be, aligned with the conservative nature of this court. The anticipated 5-4 ruling, strictly along political lines, falls in place drawing little surprise. What is surprising to some, is how the line is drawn between those for-profit companies who can take advantage of this ruling and those who cannot.
For the first time in history, the court said that a profit-seeking business can hold religious views under federal law. That is the most sweeping distinction of the ruling, by far. The separation of church and state is a critical component of this country's success. And if this latest ruling should ever be overturned, the fact that in some sense this line between church and state has been crossed will probably be the justification for the upending of this ruling.
The stipulation that corporations can hold religious objections that then permit them to opt out of certain health care law requirements--providing contraception--is the critical departure. But the ruling defines those corporations that qualify for this stipulation by a very interesting formula. Its vagueness seems overwhelmingly simplistic.
The ruling, says the court, applies only to corporations that are "under the control of just a few people," and that in those cases, "there is no essential difference between the business and its owners." How interesting.
But wait just a minute, here. How in the world does that apply to a business like Hobby Lobby, which has over 15,000 full-time employees in 600+ stores in 41 states? Does that sound to you like a mom-and-pop operation, qualifying for the stipulation because there is "essentially no difference" between the corporation and its owners? The chain's owners also own a Christian bookstore chain. With 600 stores, how can there be no distinction between the business and its owners? Just how big do you have to get to fail to qualify for this interesting stipulation? This court has definitely come up with some doozies.