Specious Argument

I keep reading this week--in discussions about the Hobby Lobby case--about how people don't "check their beliefs at the door" when they go to work.  Well, of course that's true, but it's a specious argument for this particular case.

First, let me be clear that my discussion here is philosophical and theoretical, rather that legal.  Unlike most of my friends on the Right, I don't consider myself a constitutional scholar.  But most of the discussions I'm seeing aren't legal in nature anyway.

The issue is whether Hobby Lobby--as a corporation--has religious beliefs to be protected.  The notion of corporate "personhood" as concocted by the current activist Supreme Court is created out of whole cloth.  Indeed, corporations are created by owners so that they will not be treated as "persons".  We the people allow them to exist for purposes of the common good and efficient commerce.  In return, we the people can set whatever conditions we the people deem necessary.  (At least that was the original social compact.)  So, to the point...YES, Hobby Lobby's owners have checked their religious beliefs at the door.

But with recent Supreme Court rulings, Hobby Lobby enjoys all the advantages of being a corporation (limited liability, tax advantages, etc.) when it suits them, but can also now claim the advantages of "personhood" when it is to their advantage.  In effect, the current Court has not only created this new "person", but it has created a "super person" who actually has more rights and protections than actual warm-blooded persons like you and me.

The irony, of course, is that this comes from a Supreme Court bearing the Originalist banner.  Apparently that means that if corporations didn't exist when the nation was founded, the Originalists can make up whatever Originalism they see fit.