"...have you ever seen Exxon Mobil in the pew next to you at church?" (via CNN)

[pinto]

Religious liberty is for people, not corporations

By Elizabeth B. Wydra
7:03 PM EST, Tue November 26, 2013

Editor's note: Elizabeth B. Wydra is chief counsel for the Constitutional Accountability Center, a public-interest law firm, think tank and action center. She regularly participates in Supreme Court litigation. Follow her on Twitter @ElizabethWydra.

(CNN) -- Once again, Obamacare has made its way back before the Supreme Court.

The high court decided Tuesday to review two challenges by for-profit corporations and their religious owners over comprehensive contraception coverage required by the Affordable Care Act. And if the justices follow more than 200 years of constitutional law and history on what it means to enjoy the free exercise of religion in America, the court should yet again hand a victory to the act.

It had little choice but to agree to hear the cases this term.

Using unprecedented legal reasoning, three federal circuit courts of appeals have ruled that secular, for-profit business corporations and/or the individuals who own them have a valid claim that the mandate to provide no-cost, FDA-approved contraception in their employer-sponsored health plan violates their asserted right to the free exercise of religion.

<snip>

These businesses do not hire employees on the basis of their religion and their employees are not required to share the religious beliefs personally held by the corporation's owners. In all of American history, secular, for-profit corporations have never been understood to "exercise" religion -- have you ever seen Exxon Mobil in the pew next to you at church? -- and have never been protected by the right to free exercise.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/26/opinion/wydra-supreme-court-obamacare/

[blkmusclmachine]

1. I'm pretty sure Cardinal Scalia wants to weigh in on this issue.

[JimboBillyBubbaBob]

2. No,

you'll never catch me in a church!

[ancianita]

3. With tax subsidies, exemption and wealth, church and Exxon got a good deal in common.

IF the terms of employment mean that the hiree freely AGREES TO explicitly stated, existing religious beliefs that constitute the business's policy, then the hiree agrees to all future refusals of 'benefits' not seen as benefits based on prior hiring agreement signed by both hiree and the employer. I'm pretty sure it's really more about the stipulations drawn up in contracted hiring than it is about protected rights, even if plaintiff and court want to frame the arguments and decision that way.

[lame54]

4. Yes...

I some them taking money OUT of the collection basket

[whistler162]

5. Yup.......

and you should see the oily mess they bring to the pot-luck dinners!