General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So Greenwald weighs in...telling us to read Kennedy's concurrence, noting that Ginsburg is incorrect [View all]bluesbassman
(19,372 posts)If a company (corporation) was engaged in an activity that was adversely affected by a law or ordinance restricting said activity and it could prove that the law or ordinance was put into place not as the result of improved health, safety, zoning or other related public good issues, but for any other reason, then they have every right to sue for redress regardless of the company's (corporation's) motive for engaging in the activity. That is called "restraint of trade".
But the SCOTUS ruling today went well beyond that. What it did was to say that a company (corporation) can refuse to provide goods or services (medical care) to a element of our population based solely on their "sincerely held" religious beliefs. By your logic, if Hobby Lobby refused to employ or sell products to homosexuals citing Leviticus 18:22 as their "sincerely held" religious belief, that would be fine with you?