All men are created equal, but according to the Supreme Court some are more equal than others.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Oddly, despite being the most famous phrase in american history these are some of the most controversial words in american history as well. To this day, the Right Wing loves to point to the reference to the Creator as proof we were always a christian nation. The Left Wing meanwhile likes to point out that the source of that quote, the Declaration of Independence has no legal weight of any kind, and that all our legal documents leave out any mention of the creator and therefore we were never intended to be a Christian nation

Historically the words are no less controversial, however the debates usually focused more on the meaning of the word man. Did it mean only White Men? or did it mean ALL men? Did it mean males? or did it mean "the race of man"/mankind?

However one part of that quote has NEVER been controversial. Everyone has always agreed that "all men [however it was defined] are created equal" [no matter who/what/how they were endowed as such]

Or at least it wasnt until this week, when the United States Supreme Court decided to wipe their asses with that particular sentence.

Ok so controversially, back in 2010, the Supreme Court decided that Corporations are People, with the same rights and ability to exercise those rights as anyone else.

So suddenly we had 2 types of "people" running around "Human Persons" and "Corporate Persons"

Now of course, the two types of persons were not created equally. Corporate Persons carried none of the responsibility for their actions Human Persons did.

This is why Charlie Shrem is currently awaiting trial for his companies money being used for illegal purchases, and his companies are still plugging along......despite the fact the companies committed the crimes.

But still, it was admitted this was somewhat of a legal fiction when "Corporate Persons" were created hence why the rules were different, and why they were allowed to be different for practical concerns. But hey, arguing the logic (or lack) of that isnt my point here. In fact for the sake of this article I fully embrace the idea that Corporations are People.

Still though the one thing that SEEMED to have been intended was for Human Persons to always trump Corporate Persons in a dual of rights

Again until this week.

See earlier this week the Supreme Court ruled in the Hobby Lobby case. Now I'm not really going to rant about the outcome, as opposed as I am, because I think the larger problem ISNT the decision, its the logic the court used to get there.

In the decision Justice Alito wrote the following

"As we will show, Congress provided protection for people like the Hahns and Greens by employing a familiar legal fiction: It included corporations within RFRA’s definition of “persons.” But it is important to keep in mind that the purpose of this fiction is to provide protection for human beings. A corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends. An established body of law specifies the rights and obligations of the people (including shareholders, officers, and employees) who are associated with a corporation in one way or another. When rights, whether constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people."


So just some definitions for those a bit lost: the Hahns and Greens are the owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, the two groups that brought the suit. RFRA is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is the law the plantiffs used to make their case.

The main takeaway though is this, the logic of this entire case is that Corporations are People, therefore they have the Rights of people. One of those rights is the right to a freedom of religion.

Simple enough, I mean we have disputes all the time over where your religious right begins and mine ends. The court is this case is simply doing what its done hundreds of times before, and showing where the line is.

Of course, since Hobby Lobby won the case, the ruling was that Corporate religious rights always out weight Human religious rights right?

Wrong. see the Supreme Court knew that making that ruling would be a disaster, any corporation could basically get out of any law they didnt like at any time by claiming its opposition was a deeply held religious belief.

So the Court put a qualifier on it:

"Finally, HHS contends that Congress could not have wanted RFRA to apply to for-profit corporations because it is difficult as a practical matter to ascertain the sincere “beliefs” of a corporation. HHS goes so far as to raise the specter of “divisive, polarizing proxy battles over the religious identity of large, publicly traded corporations such as IBM or General Electric.” Brief for HHS in No. 13–356, at 30.

These cases, however, do not involve publicly traded corporations, and it seems unlikely that the sort of corporate giants to which HHS refers will often assert RFRA claims. HHS has not pointed to any example of a publicly traded corporation asserting RFRA rights, and numerous practical restraints would likely prevent that from occurring. For example, the idea that unrelated shareholders—including institutional investors with their own set of stakeholders—would agree to run a corporation under the same religious beliefs seems improbable. In any event, we have no occasion in these cases to consider RFRA’s applicability to such companies. The companies in the cases before us are closely held corporations, each owned and controlled by members of a single family, and no one has disputed the sincerity of their religious beliefs."

Again, just for those unaware, HHS is the US department of Health and Human Services, or basically the Obama Administration.

Anyways, what the court is saying here, is that large publicly traded companies, DO NOT get the same right as a Privately (closely) owned company.

Now the rational for this is that publically traded companies have Shareholders. And buying a "share" literally means buying a "piece of ownership" in the company. So all shareholders are owners.

What your left with though, are 3 types of people. You still have "Human Persons", but now you have Publicly Traded Corporate Persons (PTCP) and  Closely Owned Corporate Persons (COCP)

And the thing is, the rights of PTCP's and COCP's are no longer equal. See as a Human Person my rights unquestionably trump that of a PTCP.

However, my rights are trumped by that of a COCP.

Now I know people will point out, you almost always give up some right or some freedom for any job (for example you likely do not have the right to free association at any job in the country).

But the thing is, those restrictions only really apply during working hours when you are a representative of the company.

For example I do not have the right to tell you my employer is a dirty evil money grubbing greedy corrupt company when at work. However I'm more or less free to express my opinion about them at the bar later. My employer can not force me to say nice things about them at all times, no matter what I really think of them. They can only force that at times when I am representing the company.

Here however, this case deals with an action that is not preformed at work (taking contraception). So it should be outside my employers jurisdiction, and it is.......assuming I work for a PTCP.

If I work for a COCP however, its THEIR choice about what action I engage in when not at work now.

Which in affect creates two different groups of Human Persons as well. You have Human Persons who work for a PTCP (HPPT) and Human Persons who work for a COCP (HPCO)

And the relgious rights of HPPT's and HPCO's are no longer the same.

Which means, some people do not have the religious rights of other people. To paraphrase George Orwell's animal farm "All Men are created equal. Some men are just created more equal than others"

And actually as it turns out this isnt even the end of the inequality now imposed by the supreme court.

So to my buddies over at the Hijabi Lobby, who were about to impose their new dress code.....

See YOUR religious beliefs dont count, no matter if you are PTCP or a COCP. Your female employees can not be forced to wear a Hijabi.

To the Christian Scientist owners of the Natural Hobby Lobby. Guess what?

Turns out, even though you have a deeply held religious belief against any kind of pharmaceuticals, your not allowed to opt out of healthcare, you still have to provide it for your employees because your religious beliefs dont count, and you have no religious rights as either a COCP or PTCP,

Basically what I'm saying is that it turns out that again to paraphrase Mr. Orwell

"All Religious beliefs are created equal, but some Religious beliefs are more equal than others".

And in this case the most equal religious belief is that of the people opposed to contraception, which is by and large, Christians, primarily Catholics, who also as it turns out make up 66% of the supreme court and 100% of the justices who ruled in Hobby lobbys favor (what a coincidence)

By the way, it turns out the preamble to the Declaration of Independence is not the only thing the Supreme Court has rewritten. It appears they Rewrote the First amendment as well.

It used to read like this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

Now it looks like this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion OTHER THAN THE ONE TO WHICH THE MAJORITY OF THE SUPREME COURT BELONG, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof EXCEPT WHEN THE DISAGREEMENT IS WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED RELIGION; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

Oh, but lest you Catholics get too comfortable with your new more equal status,

        

It's really just this ONE religious objection that gets any special treatment. Which means if your one 82% of catholics who is totally down with Birth Control, BUT also happen to be one of the 24% who oppose abortion in all circumstance and dont want to give your employee day off so she can see a doctor and get one, well turns out, you dont have a choice you have to give her the day off, and its basically none of your business what she does with her earned leave. Cause see since that happens outside of work you have no say in it.

Which basically means what we are now left with is 7 classes of equal people. The most equal being COCP with contraceptive beliefs (COCPCB), because their beliefs trump others. the next most equal are  HPPT without contraceptive beliefs, (HPPTWC) followed by HPPT's with contraceptive beliefs (HPPTCB) because in both cases, they have the choice to follow their beliefs, although HPPTCB are paying to have the option to change their minds. The next on the list are COCP's without contraceptive beliefs (COCPWC) because they could always change their minds (kinda like hobby lobby did seeing as how up until they sued they did provide contraception to employees) but unlike COCPCB's their other beliefs dont get special treatment. Next most equal are HPCO with contraceptive beliefs, (HPCOCB) because they are getting their way.....although thats more fluke than choice since their opinion doesnt really count. 5th most equal would be HPCO's without contraceptive beliefs (HPCOWC) since their opinions dont matter and they only get equal rights if they pay more and buy contraception separately (the supreme court did suggest a way out of the paying more part, the problem is its a suggestion that doesnt have to be followed). Finally, at the bottom of the most equal list are  PTCP's , because according to the supreme court, they dont actually have rights at all in this case, so their is no point in even dividing them up by opinion.    

So yea, now if you want to know what your rights are, you better figure out what kind of person are you. Just like personality type scores like INJF or ESFP are common identifiers for people now, and posted by many on personal websites, you'll have to figure what type of person you are. Are you a HPPTCB? or are you more of a HPCOWC? maybe even a  COCPCB? 

You better figure it out quick, you dont want to miss out on your rights.......unless of course you've got a penis, in which case.....................................

I've actually got some GOOD news (even if I dont have a youtube clip). NONE of this shit fucking matters to you AT ALL. Your contraception is still covered. You can have a vasectomy, or attempt to undo a vasectomy, even if your employer happens to be a COCPCB. 

Yea see when I said the supreme court made their ruling NARROW, I meant really narrow. It only covers contraception. And vasectomies and viagra dont count. Also it turns out, Condoms dont count either, because hey its outside of work so its your business. 

So this now creates our 8th and new most equal class of people People Entitled to No Intrusion of Someone Else's Spiritually (PENISES).

Now the good news is, for those of you having a hard time figuring out which level of Equal person you are out, I can help half of you out right now. Reach between your legs, if you feel something sticking out from the middle, Congrats you are PENISES. For the rest of you, good luck, but at least you will be less equal to everyone else right? So that still counts as equal. 

So yea to recap, according to the supreme court

1) Corporations are people

2) People have a right to free exercise of religion 

3) therefore Corporations have a right to free exercise of religion

4) BUT only if the religion they choose to practice is Christianity 

5) AND only if the religious practice involves beliefs on birth control 

6) AND only if birth control methods are exclusively used by women

7) UNLESS you are not the right kind of corporate person, in which case screw you, your rights dont even matter at all you can be forced to do ANYTHING. 

8) unless you have a dick, in which case none of the above applies. 

Which probably explains why the majority of the Court that ruled in Hobby Lobby's favor looked like this:

5 PENISES. Who all happen to be Catholic and religiously against contraception. 

And the dissenting justices looked like this: 

3 Jews. 3 Women. and I assume 3 users of contraception.

So yea, there you have it folks. The United States Supreme Court, in which the Majority makes a ruling they are exempted from, but YOU are not, based on their Religious beliefs for you, and also ensure it wouldnt work the other way around, should you ever end up in a position of power.....say as the owner of a Closely Owned Corporate Person, who happens to be a satanist, or a Buddhist, or a Hindu, or an Atheist, or a Jew, or a Protestant.