What do you think of this interpretation of the case before SCOTUS regarding a corporations's right to refuse to offer contraceptives on religious grounds?
This way of looking at it caught me off guard. Previously, my main argument in favor of the contraceptives provision was that corporations have no right to impose their religious views on their employees. I had to read the article 2 or 3 times before I got the point, but it is actually fairly simple. If individual stockholders are entitled to certain privileges then they should be subject to personal responsibility for corporate actions, which the Court has previously opposed. Can’t have it both ways. You can’t look behind the corporate curtain to give privileges without peeking behind the curtain to assign responsibilities.