SCOTUS Watch

[Pyperkub]

That's not exactly new. Hobby Lobby is already closed on Sunday's because of it's beliefs.

A fair point - but that impacts all workers. This decision specifically impacts women. And apparently that's terrific. Next up - homosexuals.

I agree it is a bad decision, but it effects men as well unless you think all those women are trying to prevent virgin births (the very thought of which just caused a lol while I typed it).

One is tempted to show you the error of your ways by legitimately bringing up a Todd Akin moment...

[Isgrimnur]

The gay marriage thing isn't about forcing someone to perform an action against their strongly held beliefs, it's people trying to use their strongly held beliefs to prevent the actions of others that do not share those beliefs.

[stessier]

According to this ruling, in theory, yes if that's a closely held religious belief. However, they were very specific in this ruling to indicate it only applied to this scenario and (for example) similar religious beliefs couldn't be used to justify not submitting to vaccination because reasons.

Essentially if your corporation's religious belief assumes women are whoring it up, all is good. I think.

RIght, so as long as it has the "A" word in it, I'm good to go. But technically I could associate almost any medical treatment with the "A" word and I'd be good to go. As long as I Believed in it.

Probably doesn't need "abortion" in it. Anything where you thought you were saving a human life would probably work.

I'm not sure where this comes from. As I read it, they were explicitly warning that courts can't be in the business of weighing the value of different beliefs. My take was that it's not about the importance saving or not saving human life. It's about a religious belief that you're not supposed to do something, regardless of what that is.

I thought they had specifically said it would not apply to vaccinations. In that case, I figured it wasn't just any strongly held belief, but had something to do with them being (believed to be) abortion drugs. I have not read the actual ruling, which is my bad. Thanks for your notes!

[El Guapo]

According to this ruling, in theory, yes if that's a closely held religious belief. However, they were very specific in this ruling to indicate it only applied to this scenario and (for example) similar religious beliefs couldn't be used to justify not submitting to vaccination because reasons.

Essentially if your corporation's religious belief assumes women are whoring it up, all is good. I think.

RIght, so as long as it has the "A" word in it, I'm good to go. But technically I could associate almost any medical treatment with the "A" word and I'd be good to go. As long as I Believed in it.

Probably doesn't need "abortion" in it. Anything where you thought you were saving a human life would probably work.

I'm not sure where this comes from. As I read it, they were explicitly warning that courts can't be in the business of weighing the value of different beliefs. My take was that it's not about the importance saving or not saving human life. It's about a religious belief that you're not supposed to do something, regardless of what that is.

I thought they had specifically said it would not apply to vaccinations. In that case, I figured it wasn't just any strongly held belief, but had something to do with them being (believed to be) abortion drugs. I have not read the actual ruling, which is my bad. Thanks for your notes!

They said that the current ruling (the Hobby Lobby decision itself) does not address vaccinations. That doesn't stop them from ruling in the future that vaccination requirements cannot impinge on religious freedom (though Alito speculates about a reason or two why vaccination requirements might hold up).

[Pyperkub]

The gay marriage thing isn't about forcing someone to perform an action against their strongly held beliefs, it's people trying to use their strongly held beliefs to prevent the actions of others that do not share those beliefs.

Yeah, but the fine print in the decision was meant to make it a limited decision. That has not been the case.

[Rip]

The gay marriage thing isn't about forcing someone to perform an action against their strongly held beliefs, it's people trying to use their strongly held beliefs to prevent the actions of others that do not share those beliefs.

Yeah, but the fine print in the decision was meant to make it a limited decision. That has not been the case.

So says you, but until someone tries to apply it in a less limited fashion there is no way of knowing. One thing we should all know is that if they want to decide a certain direction they will have no problem justifying it. For all we know it may end up being limited to just this exact application. It isn't up to us, it is up to them. If they want it to be limited it will be.

[El Guapo]

The gay marriage thing isn't about forcing someone to perform an action against their strongly held beliefs, it's people trying to use their strongly held beliefs to prevent the actions of others that do not share those beliefs.

Yeah, but the fine print in the decision was meant to make it a limited decision. That has not been the case.

So says you, but until someone tries to apply it in a less limited fashion there is no way of knowing. One thing we should all know is that if they want to decide a certain direction they will have no problem justifying it. For all we know it may end up being limited to just this exact application. It isn't up to us, it is up to them. If they want it to be limited it will be.

Yes and no. They're not the only ones - or really, the main ones - applying this decision. There will be plenty of lower court applications of the case that won't receive Supreme Court attention.

[Grifman]

Essentially if your corporation's religious belief assumes women are whoring it up, all is good. I think.

That's a pretty deceptive comment on your part. Hobby Lobby has no problems with contraception in general, just ones that they believe were abortifacients. So their employees, male and female, are totally free to "whore it up". Their objection is to facilitating abortion, not controlling their employees sex lives.

[Smoove_B]

Their objection is to facilitating abortion, not controlling their employees sex lives.

You're correct. I'm just incredulous over the issue. And as pointed out, their object to facilitating abortion in light of where they funnel money to get the very goods they sell is hilarious.

[Rip]

The gay marriage thing isn't about forcing someone to perform an action against their strongly held beliefs, it's people trying to use their strongly held beliefs to prevent the actions of others that do not share those beliefs.

Yeah, but the fine print in the decision was meant to make it a limited decision. That has not been the case.

So says you, but until someone tries to apply it in a less limited fashion there is no way of knowing. One thing we should all know is that if they want to decide a certain direction they will have no problem justifying it. For all we know it may end up being limited to just this exact application. It isn't up to us, it is up to them. If they want it to be limited it will be.

Yes and no. They're not the only ones - or really, the main ones - applying this decision. There will be plenty of lower court applications of the case that won't receive Supreme Court attention.

and if they apply it less narrowly than SCOTUS intended it will be appealed and SCOTUS will make it right. Process working as intended.

[Rip]

Their objection is to facilitating abortion, not controlling their employees sex lives.

You're correct. I'm just incredulous over the issue. And as pointed out, their object to facilitating abortion in light of where they funnel money to get the very goods they sell is hilarious.

It would seem that hanging out with politicians so much is making them act more like one.

[RunningMn9]

Okay, but fast forward to today. Why is Hobby Lobby the person able to do what you said but the owner was previously not able to do so? I'm asking because I genuinely want to know and I'm curious to see if there was another way Hobby Lobby could have chosen to resolve this.

Because "Hobby Lobby" isn't a person. "Hobby Lobby" is a fictional entity, whose existence is (or was) in large part to provide a liability shield for the owners of "Hobby Lobby". One of the paramount responsibilities on the owners of "Hobby Lobby" is to maintain the fiction that they are distinctly separate entities from "Hobby Lobby". Should they fail to maintain that fiction, they run the risk of losing that liability protection (known as "piercing the corporate veil").

So the question prior to yesterday was "can a for-profit corporation choose which laws they want to abide by, based on the religious objections of their owners" - which has always been a resounding "no". Because the owners and the corporation they own are distinct entities, only one of which is capable of having religious objections.

The only way that I would have found this decision tolerable was if the consequences of having a corporation invoke your personal right to religious liberty was that you would lose the liability shield offered to you by hiding behind a corporation. Either the owners of Hobby Lobby are distinctly separate from Hobby Lobby or they are not.

[paulbaxter]

So the question prior to yesterday was "can a for-profit corporation choose which laws they want to abide by, based on the religious objections of their owners" - which has always been a resounding "no". Because the owners and the corporation they own are distinct entities, only one of which is capable of having religious objections.

I'm asking because I don't know: has this actually come up with any regularity? Are there some significant prior court cases regarding corporations and religious beliefs?

I don't have a strong position one way or the other about the status of corporations, but I think it worth pointing out that a great many churches (maybe most?) are registered as corporations for whatever reason.

[Kraken]

"We have really good evidence for that. If you use science here, you're talking about this decision increasing the number of women having abortion if they do not cover emergency contraception and IUDs."

The evidence comes from studies that examined whether rates of abortions fell if women received the most effective methods of contraception, free of charge. In one research project, conducted in the St. Louis area in Missouri, of the 10,000 participating women, 75 percent opted for long-acting methods of contraception such as IUDs or implants, and the rest chose short-acting methods such as pills, hormonal patches or cervical rings.

The results showed that increasing the availability and use of the most effective contraception methods, such as IUDs, reduced abortion rates by 20 percent, Wiebe said.

On the other hand, according to Hobby Lobby's beliefs, IUDs and such constitute after-conception birth control. Which, if you believe life starts at conception, results in no reduction in abortion rates in the above studies. Not that I agree with the corporation's religious beliefs. I'm just sayin'.

How many zygotes does one need to "save" to justify aborting one fetus?

I realize that fundies exist on an entirely different plane that rarely intersects with mine. It's probably all babies to them.

[RunningMn9]

That's a pretty deceptive comment on your part. Hobby Lobby has no problems with contraception in general, just ones that they believe were abortifacients. So their employees, male and female, are totally free to "whore it up". Their objection is to facilitating abortion, not controlling their employees sex lives.

Before I start - let me at least acknowledge that according to this ruling, I am wrong.

The problem I have with all of this is that the Green family isn't paying for jack shit. They aren't facilitating abortions or fuck-all. The money that is being used to pay for health insurance premiums isn't their money. It's Hobby Lobby's money. And Hobby Lobby isn't a person capable of having religious thoughts and feelings. Hobby Lobby is a corporate entity that is required to follow the laws of the land. The ACA is the law of the land. My objection is the characterization that in a closely held corporation, there is essentially no difference between the corporate entity and the owners.

That is the exact opposite of the truth. If that were true, then there would be no reason for Hobby Lobby to exist as a corporate entity. The entire point of the existence of Hobby Lobby as a corporate entity is to very specifically create an entity that is entirely distinct from the owners.

If the Green family doesn't want that fiction to exist - that's fine with me. Take away their liability shield.

[Pyperkub]

hmmm... it appears as if I did over-react:

Hobby Lobby’s health care plan. It includes access, copay-free, to the following categories of FDA-approved birth-control:

Male condoms
Female condoms
Diaphragms with spermicide
Sponges with spermicide
Cervical caps with spermicide
Spermicide alone
Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
Contraceptive patches
Contraceptive rings
Progestin injections
Implantable rods
Vasectomies
Female sterilization surgeries
Female sterilization implants...

...What Hobby Lobby will not cover are four contraceptive methods that its owners fear are abortifacients:

Plan B (“The Morning After Pill”)
Ella (a similar type of “emergency contraception”)
Copper Intra-Uterine Device
IUD with progestin

I was definitely under the impression that the health care being banned included the pill. I still don't think they should have the right to exclude abortions - which should be between the woman and her doctor (especially medically necessary ones, or in the case of rape, etc.).

If the ruling doesn't expand into some monstrous precedent, I can live with it, though if a Doctor said that one of the 4 banned methods was medically recommended, I think it should be covered.

[Smoove_B]

I was definitely under the impression that the health care being banned included the pill. I still don't think they should have the right to exclude abortions - which should be between the woman and her doctor (especially medically necessary ones, or in the case of rape, etc.).

If you scroll back, we sort of covered this and it probably is the biggest misconception (HA!) of the case. They're not even objecting to abortions specifically. The issue is that they believe four of the 22 methods are equal to abortion, therefore they shouldn't be required to pay for them on religious grounds. Above and beyond a corporation having a religious opinion, the idea that your belief - regardless of whether or not it's factual - can hold weight is insane.

[Kurth]

I was definitely under the impression that the health care being banned included the pill. I still don't think they should have the right to exclude abortions - which should be between the woman and her doctor (especially medically necessary ones, or in the case of rape, etc.).

If you scroll back, we sort of covered this and it probably is the biggest misconception (HA!) of the case. They're not even objecting to abortions specifically. The issue is that they believe four of the 22 methods are equal to abortion, therefore they shouldn't be required to pay for them on religious grounds. Above and beyond a corporation having a religious opinion, the idea that your belief - regardless of whether or not it's factual - can hold weight is insane.

But let's be clear - the arguments being made are not limited in any way to the 4 birth control measures challenged by Hobby Lobby. From the dissent:

Moreover, the Court’s reasoning appears to permit commercial enterprises like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga to exclude from their group health plans all forms of contraceptives. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 38–39 (counsel for Hobby Lobby acknowledged that his “argument . . . would apply just as well if the employer said ‘no contraceptives’” (internal quotation marks added)).

[Smoove_B]

When Justice Ginsberg writes "...appears to permit..." is this fancy lawyer talk for "Until another corporation officially tries to do this with [Specific Contraceptive Method], we don't know if they can or cannot" or is she just making commentary on the written opinion (i.e. this is sloppy and my peers should be ashamed)?

[GreenGoo]

So the question prior to yesterday was "can a for-profit corporation choose which laws they want to abide by, based on the religious objections of their owners" - which has always been a resounding "no". Because the owners and the corporation they own are distinct entities, only one of which is capable of having religious objections.

I'm asking because I don't know: has this actually come up with any regularity? Are there some significant prior court cases regarding corporations and religious beliefs?

I don't have a strong position one way or the other about the status of corporations, but I think it worth pointing out that a great many churches (maybe most?) are registered as corporations for whatever reason.

If you exam the history and in fact all current law (prior to unlimited political donations and this current religious beliefs ruling) shows that the intention of a corporation is to shield the owners from liability by creating a separate legal entity and attaching liability to that. It's not "fictional" as Rmn9 says, but it is artificial. It's existence is very real and the law recognizes it. There is plenty of language in the laws that the corporation is a "person" under the law and should be treated as such. This is partly where we see a lot of movement to provide corporations with more and more "freedoms" and where the snarky "when do they get to vote" comments come from.

Rmn9's point, one I agree with, is that a corporation is not actually a person, cannot hold religious beliefs and has limited protection under the law. As Rmn9 said, one of the main benefits of creating a corporation is protecting your personal assets. But why is the government protecting these personal assets when for all intents and purposes the courts are ruling more and more than the owners and the corporations are the same thing. Are we going to see a muslim corporation who's owners are christian? If the two are separate then we should see that at some point. Barring some financial gain (such as PR while operating in a primarily muslim country) we aren't going to see that. SCOTUS just ruled that it's ok for the owners and corporations to sorta be the same thing. The farther we move in this direction, the more we need to think about revoking the protections corporations provide.

And I just want to say that I'm embarrassed for Rip. I understand he's a libertarian and wants the government out of everyone's business, both personal and corporate, but to accept this ruling as a blow for freedom is a crock. It's an exploitation of the corporate system to allow the owners of a corporation to discriminate against some of their workers. It's amazing how often "Freedom of Religion" in the US manifests as someone's right to screw someone else over because, well, God apparently.

While this is a victory for corporations to do what they want while free from government intervention (even though the protections corporations enjoy are provided solely by the government), the ruling itself makes no sense while achieving Rip's libertarian goals. Corporations are not people. Corporations can not hold religious belief. Corporations are especially not the owners. Corporations must follow the laws of the land. But this ruling counters these ideas on multiple levels.

Rip, you got your freedom to limit healthcare benefits. But my god, at what cost? This whole topic would fit nicely in the "Future is Pitchforks" thread.

[Kurth]

When Justice Ginsberg writes "...appears to permit..." is this fancy lawyer talk for "Until another corporation officially tries to do this with [Specific Contraceptive Method], we don't know if they can or cannot" or is she just making commentary on the written opinion (i.e. this is sloppy and my peers should be ashamed)?

She's commenting on the majority opinion, so it's just a comment (dicta in fancy lawyer talk, and not even that since it's in the dissent).

That said, she's pointing to the arguments actually made by Hobby Lobby and noting that in those argumenst, Hobby Lobby conceded that it's reasoning (as adopted by the majority) would apply just as well to a religous-based refusal to provide coverage for any contraceptive. Or, IMHO, any treatment whatsoever.

[RunningMn9]

If you exam the history and in fact all current law (prior to unlimited political donations and this current religious beliefs ruling) shows that the intention of a corporation is to shield the owners from liability by creating a separate legal entity and attaching liability to that. It's not "fictional" as Rmn9 says, but it is artificial.

When I say "fiction", I mean it in exactly the same way that you mean "artificial". This should have been clear from the rest of my words. It's a "fiction" in the sense that we made it up, and it is true because we all agree to act as if it's true.

There is plenty of language in the laws that the corporation is a "person" under the law and should be treated as such.

There's not as much as you think. Corporations are treated as "persons" in the sense that they are treated as a single entity able to take a set of actions under the law in a manner similar to if they were actual people (i.e. they can enter into contracts as a single entity that is equivalent to a real human).

Rmn9's point, one I agree with, is that a corporation is not actually a person, cannot hold religious beliefs and has limited protection under the law. As Rmn9 said, one of the main benefits of creating a corporation is protecting your personal assets. But why is the government protecting these personal assets when for all intents and purposes the courts are ruling more and more than the owners and the corporations are the same thing.

Agreement! Hooray!!

And I just want to say that I'm embarrassed for Rip. I understand he's a libertarian and wants the government out of everyone's business, both personal and corporate, but to accept this ruling as a blow for freedom is a crock. It's an exploitation of the corporate system to allow the owners of a corporation to discriminate against some of their workers. It's amazing how often "Freedom of Religion" in the US manifests as someone's right to screw someone else over because, well, God apparently.

People like Rip see cases like this as Citizen(s) vs. Government. They never see these cases as Corporation vs. Employees.

I am still shocked that the Supreme Court either ruled that a Corporation can have a religion, or that a Corporation and its owners are essentially the same thing.

[Dogstar]

Before we get too comfy that the Supreme Court limited their decision to only the four methods in question, I'd advise you to check out SCOTUSblog. It appears that the Court is now applying Hobby Lobby to other cases that had been appealed to them, and in doing so, is acting in favor of parties that opposed ALL preventative services. Awesome.

[paulbaxter]

So the question prior to yesterday was "can a for-profit corporation choose which laws they want to abide by, based on the religious objections of their owners" - which has always been a resounding "no". Because the owners and the corporation they own are distinct entities, only one of which is capable of having religious objections.

I'm asking because I don't know: has this actually come up with any regularity? Are there some significant prior court cases regarding corporations and religious beliefs?

I don't have a strong position one way or the other about the status of corporations, but I think it worth pointing out that a great many churches (maybe most?) are registered as corporations for whatever reason.

If you exam the history and in fact all current law (prior to unlimited political donations and this current religious beliefs ruling) shows that the intention of a corporation is to shield the owners from liability by creating a separate legal entity and attaching liability to that. It's not "fictional" as Rmn9 says, but it is artificial. It's existence is very real and the law recognizes it. There is plenty of language in the laws that the corporation is a "person" under the law and should be treated as such. This is partly where we see a lot of movement to provide corporations with more and more "freedoms" and where the snarky "when do they get to vote" comments come from.

Rmn9's point, one I agree with, is that a corporation is not actually a person, cannot hold religious beliefs and has limited protection under the law. As Rmn9 said, one of the main benefits of creating a corporation is protecting your personal assets. But why is the government protecting these personal assets when for all intents and purposes the courts are ruling more and more than the owners and the corporations are the same thing. Are we going to see a muslim corporation who's owners are christian? If the two are separate then we should see that at some point. Barring some financial gain (such as PR while operating in a primarily muslim country) we aren't going to see that. SCOTUS just ruled that it's ok for the owners and corporations to sorta be the same thing. The farther we move in this direction, the more we need to think about revoking the protections corporations provide.

And I just want to say that I'm embarrassed for Rip. I understand he's a libertarian and wants the government out of everyone's business, both personal and corporate, but to accept this ruling as a blow for freedom is a crock. It's an exploitation of the corporate system to allow the owners of a corporation to discriminate against some of their workers. It's amazing how often "Freedom of Religion" in the US manifests as someone's right to screw someone else over because, well, God apparently.

While this is a victory for corporations to do what they want while free from government intervention (even though the protections corporations enjoy are provided solely by the government), the ruling itself makes no sense while achieving Rip's libertarian goals. Corporations are not people. Corporations can not hold religious belief. Corporations are especially not the owners. Corporations must follow the laws of the land. But this ruling counters these ideas on multiple levels.

Rip, you got your freedom to limit healthcare benefits. But my god, at what cost? This whole topic would fit nicely in the "Future is Pitchforks" thread.

So churches do or don't get to hold religious positions? Do they also lose that right when they incorporate? Or is there some legal distinction between types of corporations which allows some types to hold beliefs and others not to?

[Pyperkub]

Before we get too comfy that the Supreme Court limited their decision to only the four methods in question, I'd advise you to check out SCOTUSblog. It appears that the Court is now applying Hobby Lobby to other cases that had been appealed to them, and in doing so, is acting in favor of parties that opposed ALL preventative services. Awesome.

That appears to be very disturbing, IMHO.

[Unagi]

So, how does something like this insane ruling get reversed ?? my god.

[Isgrimnur]

So, how does something like this insane ruling get reversed ?? my god.

Congressional action. Good luck finding the political agreement, will, and capital to spend on it.

[Pyperkub]

So, how does something like this insane ruling get reversed ?? my god.

Congressional action. Good luck finding the political agreement, will, and capital to spend on it.

Retirement of some older Justices while a Democrat is in the White House too, or an FDR-style method of packing the Court.

[Rip]

It could easily be solved by ending the government mandated employer-medical care tie in. My choice would have been to not have national healthcare in the first place, but if we must have it single payer is the only way that makes sense. It is inevitable that we end up there so when that happens all of this no longer matters.

[RunningMn9]

So churches do or don't get to hold religious positions? Do they also lose that right when they incorporate? Or is there some legal distinction between types of corporations which allows some types to hold beliefs and others not to?

Non-profits are treated differently than for-profits.

[RunningMn9]

It could easily be solved by ending the government mandated employer-medical care tie in. My choice would have been to not have national healthcare in the first place, but if we must have it single payer is the only way that makes sense. It is inevitable that we end up there so when that happens all of this no longer matters.

Government only mandated it in this case because that's how most people were getting their health insurance. Breaking that bond should have been the primary goal of healthcare reform.

[GreenGoo]

So churches do or don't get to hold religious positions? Do they also lose that right when they incorporate? Or is there some legal distinction between types of corporations which allows some types to hold beliefs and others not to?

Is this a serious question?

[GreenGoo]

It could easily be solved by ending the government mandated employer-medical care tie in. My choice would have been to not have national healthcare in the first place, but if we must have it single payer is the only way that makes sense. It is inevitable that we end up there so when that happens all of this no longer matters.

Government only mandated it in this case because that's how most people were getting their health insurance. Breaking that bond should have been the primary goal of healthcare reform.

I can hardly wait to see what happens in the US when government mandated healthcare is removed and nothing fills the void. Wait, is this the pitchfork thread? I'm getting confused.

[Rip]

So churches do or don't get to hold religious positions? Do they also lose that right when they incorporate? Or is there some legal distinction between types of corporations which allows some types to hold beliefs and others not to?

Non-profits are treated differently than for-profits.

So why should being for-profit mean that you can't be for anything else? Does it have to be all for profit or all for something else?

[Rip]

It could easily be solved by ending the government mandated employer-medical care tie in. My choice would have been to not have national healthcare in the first place, but if we must have it single payer is the only way that makes sense. It is inevitable that we end up there so when that happens all of this no longer matters.

Government only mandated it in this case because that's how most people were getting their health insurance. Breaking that bond should have been the primary goal of healthcare reform.

See we can agree on something.


Just like immigration reform should be about getting control of people entering and leaving the country, otherwise any reform is nothing but pissing in the wind.

[RunningMn9]

So why should being for-profit mean that you can't be for anything else?

It doesn't mean that they can't be for anything else (although it's unlikely that their articles of incorporation establish any other purpose). It means that if they want to be for-profit, they have to follow all of the rules.

Well, until yesterday.

[RunningMn9]

See we can agree on something.

The path forward is easy enough. Employers just need to start transitioning employees to the exchanges.

[Rip]

It could easily be solved by ending the government mandated employer-medical care tie in. My choice would have been to not have national healthcare in the first place, but if we must have it single payer is the only way that makes sense. It is inevitable that we end up there so when that happens all of this no longer matters.

Government only mandated it in this case because that's how most people were getting their health insurance. Breaking that bond should have been the primary goal of healthcare reform.

I can hardly wait to see what happens in the US when government mandated healthcare is removed and nothing fills the void. Wait, is this the pitchfork thread? I'm getting confused.

Well you will have to wait.....forever because it won't happen. Now that the can has been opened it is pretty much impossible to just remove the mandate. Only choice left is single payer which while I have a distaste for it will at least remove the ignorant link between healthcare and the employer.

[RunningMn9]

Single payer isn't the only option. I would be satisfied if we all had access to health insurance exchanges where insurance companies are forced to compete for our business.

[Rip]

So why should being for-profit mean that you can't be for anything else?

It doesn't mean that they can't be for anything else (although it's unlikely that their articles of incorporation establish any other purpose). It means that if they want to be for-profit, they have to follow all of the rules.

Well, until yesterday.

So can't they be for advancing a religious agenda first and profit second? The only reason a corporation wants profit is because the people who own it want profit. I see no reason those same people can't want the corporation to pursue any number of other agenda as a priority and profit as a lesser motive/objective. Profit not need be mutually exclusive of any other agenda, even if that agenda is a religious/political/environmental/scientific etc. In the end it is up to those that own it and if those who do are small in number and like in mind there is no reason to limit that agenda.