It is, truly, Nincompoopery. A work of staggering idiocy. A “Corporation” is created to indemnify people, and then act in a public manner (equivalent to a “company” in British English) for a designated purpose. This purpose is identified in the corporate charter and is included when incorporation occurs.
It creates a legal “person” or entity to facilitate commerce or public actions. It protects individuals from corporate actions.
For example, General Motors may be sued, as an incorporated entity, for faulty ignition switches. But one cannot sue the line operator at 2:30 PM on Tuesday the 24th of July who installed that faulty switch in Chevrolet Cruze #261,419. Nor can you sue Jane Smith, shareholder of GM stock as being responsible. That is why for profit corporations are created.
The Supreme Court has held that “Corporate Entities” have the right of Free Speech. That is, they can donate to campaigns and promote candidates. Although I disagree with the ruling – I understand it. The “Entity” of General Motors, based on its corporate charter does have certain interests, and political speech can often further those interests. One can argue that “Jane Smith” stockholder supports the charter through her stock purchase, and therefore tactically supports those speech rights.
Today the Supreme Court held that a “Corporate Entity” may have the right of religious freedom – if it is closely held. In this case, “closely held” refers to any incorporated entity where less than 5 people hold more than 50% of the stock. That limits the impact of this ruling to only 90% of companies (albeit not 90% of employees' employers). Updated: NBC and CBS news reported that about 50% of American workers are employed by a "closely held" company that falls under the right to religious discrimination.
And, in the religious freedom, they (Hobby Lobby in this case) have the right to break a law they feel violates their religious principles. Note, not a law that DOES violate their religious principals, but that the Corporation “feels” or “believes” violates their religious principles. This is critical, because they reason Hobby Lobby protested the requirement to offer birth control is because they believe it is abortion. It is not, and medical experts were ready to testify, but the court said there was no need. That Hobby Lobby “believed” that it violated its religious views, and that was enough.
(Le'ts look to Anthony Scalia... "Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito argued that contesting Hobby Lobby’s claim that contraception is the same thing as abortion — an idea that has been refuted time and again by medical providers and associations — “in effect tells the plaintiffs that their beliefs are flawed.” ")
Does this mean that Hobby Lobby – or other closely held corporations – can discriminate on the basis of race? No. The Supreme Court called out that as unfair, regardless of how the building and its contents read the Bible.
HOwever, the Supreme Court made no such mention on gender, much less sexual orientation, age, or marital status. So Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to promote women – if they can point to the part of the Bible that says women should be subservient to men. And they can fire a divorced woman. They can ask if you (male or female) has premarital sex and charge you different prices. They can certainly discriminate against gays, Jews, anyone that wears polyester, anyone that eats shrimp or crab.
The corporation – remember a corporation is the building and its contents, its computers and its bank accounts, that is what a corporation IS – gets to decide if you are worthy of not just employment, but anything else it wants to. In this case, woman who use certain types of birth control are not worthy of the grace of God and Hobby Lobby Inc.
The court left open the question of a those closely held corporations that don’t believe in blood transfusions, vaccinations and medicine (like aspirin or antibiotics). But damn, if I was a corporation, I would amend my charter so my company was a Jehovah’s Witness member. They don’t believe in a raft of medical procedures, which would certainly cut down on expenses.
The one other item they specifically called out - you must believe in taxes. (Seriously.)