Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius -- CU revisited

[Hammerskjold]

That verse out of context, like many others, is often used as a foil to chastise most anyone. It's hard to live up to this standard (out of context), unless you immediately sell all your possession, donate the proceeds to your local charity, and join a monastery. I believe there is more nuance when read in context.

Wait which verse, the ethically and sustainably sourced googly eyes or the 2 masters parable?

Ok serious-er, the overly literal\extremist interpretation of the 2 masters story, is not worth discussing and not what I meant. Does anyone actually believe that everyone should have only a begging bowl and be in sack cloths, and any profit is bad mmmkay?

If the choice is to attempt to run your business in a manner consistent with your belief system, whether that be Jewish, Islamic, Christian, or whatever, then you'd be closer to the former (building spiritual treasure), than rolling over to a civil authority that has demanded you surrender what you see as key to your morality.

Yes, consistency in their professed belief system would be nice and uhm, consistent. And the more I read about the case, the more I'm doubtful that it is about their right to freedom of religion\morals. Ditto to the scenario that it's the authora-tays demanding HL surrendering it's professed morality.

To me it's looking more like an attempted legal runaround to use 'morality', as an excuse to avoid paying a part of their health coverage for their employees.

And HL having invested in companies that produces the contraceptive products, the kind of products that HL claims is against their beliefs. Well let me just ask you, doesn't that make you go kind of, .....Hmmmm... Even just a bit?

Maybe they really were ignorant of the fact. But how long is the shelf life on that defense? If this really is a matter of -consistent- morals for this company, are they willing to put their money where their mouth is?

Another take on this ruling is it's risk of piercing the corporate veil, in making individual owners more liable for corporate behavior. I believe most executives secretly like the "no risk of jail" for criminal corporate behavior.

Secretly like? If that's a secret, that would be one of the worst kept secrets around then.

The possibility of a conscience to me, diminishes in proportion to the chance of culpability. If there's no to laughably low penalties for bad to outright criminal behaviour, then unconscionable actions can still be written off as a cost of 'doing' business.

And I'm saying that as someone who may or may not incorporate for legal liability protections in the near future.