If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   SCOTUS to decide if corporations can dictate your religious beliefs   (nytimes.com) divider line 236
    More: Asinine, U.S. Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby, religious musics, for-profit corporations, Mr. Green, employment contracts, lower courts, Douglas Laycock  
•       •       •

3846 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Nov 2013 at 9:43 AM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



236 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-25 09:25:15 AM
Freedom of atheism for everyone.
 
2013-11-25 09:33:41 AM
Citizens United is one of the worst SCOTUS rulings in recent history, and using it as precedent is equally as bad.  Corporations are not people.
 
2013-11-25 09:36:44 AM

syrynxx: Citizens United is one of the worst SCOTUS rulings in recent history, and using it as precedent is equally as bad.  Corporations are not people.


Under the law they are
 
2013-11-25 09:39:32 AM
If they say that it is ok for corporations/businesses to deny contraception based on religions grounds, I wonder how they will work the decision not to include the practice of denying just about any kind of care based on religion.  It seems to me that the only way they could do this is to consider contraception a unique and outlying category set distinctively apart from things like general preventative care and vaccinations and blood transfusions and so on...(and that wouldn't be right, IMO).
 
2013-11-25 09:44:38 AM

cman: syrynxx: Citizens United is one of the worst SCOTUS rulings in recent history, and using it as precedent is equally as bad.  Corporations are not people.

Under the law they are


That's a little sophistic. Corporations are "persons" in that they may hold property interests.
 
2013-11-25 09:46:22 AM

cman: Under the law they are


I'll believe that as soon as Texas executes one.
 
2013-11-25 09:47:18 AM

cman: syrynxx: Citizens United is one of the worst SCOTUS rulings in recent history, and using it as precedent is equally as bad.  Corporations are not people.

Under the law they are



Indeed, and Black people used to be 3/5th of one for census purposes.  Still bullshiat.
 
2013-11-25 09:47:23 AM

cman: Under the law they are


Statutory law is essentially silent on any such question, and case law is almost entirely concerned with questions of property and liability, which aren't at issue here.
 
2013-11-25 09:47:46 AM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: cman: syrynxx: Citizens United is one of the worst SCOTUS rulings in recent history, and using it as precedent is equally as bad.  Corporations are not people.

Under the law they are

That's a little sophistic. Corporations are "persons" in that they may hold property interests.


Corporate personhood is rather complex I admit. Maybe a tad bit over-complicated. It might need some revisiting. And that is why we have something called Democracy.
 
2013-11-25 09:48:27 AM
Walmart and McDonalds can convert to christian scientists and then they won't have to cover anything.
 
2013-11-25 09:48:54 AM
This is just some flat out scary shiat.  Churches and religious fanatics have no business regulating the insurance market, through corporations or otherwise.
 
2013-11-25 09:49:35 AM
How dare those employees use their own individual rights as an excuse to trample the rights of a corporation.  I bet they didn't even consider the corporations feelings.
 
2013-11-25 09:51:00 AM
Hail CEO!  Full of shares.  The markets be with thee.
 
2013-11-25 09:52:11 AM
Doctors rather than employers should decide which form of contraception is best

This is the big problem. As long as businesses "provide" healthcare to its employees they will want a say in what exactly is provided. It is a terrible way of doing things and there is no practical reason for it to work this way.
 
2013-11-25 09:52:20 AM

cman: syrynxx: Citizens United is one of the worst SCOTUS rulings in recent history, and using it as precedent is equally as bad.  Corporations are not people.

Under the law they are


1)  Corporations are owned by shareholders.

2)  There's an amendment that says you can't own people.

3)  Therefore...
 
2013-11-25 09:53:23 AM
1) No, they are not doing anything remotely like that.

2) Businesses should not be required to provide any benefits they don't want to, that's between them and their employees.

3) So long as other businesses are required to provide benefits they don't want to, nobody shouldn't get special treatment because they believe in an invisible friend who tells them to not provide certain benefits.
 
2013-11-25 09:53:24 AM
You know what I hate? The corner store by my place, which is owned by Muslims, does not sell beef jerkey. Bastards.
 
2013-11-25 09:53:28 AM
There is one solution for all of this.  As soon as there is an airtight majority in all houses including the White House, vote LULZ-worthy amounts of education funding. Like defense spending amounts of education spending.  In 18 years, the final nail in the GOP coffin will be struck.
 
2013-11-25 09:53:47 AM
I just don't see how allowing the selective offering of healthcare options in an employee benefits package should be legal or a good thing for the country (those two items might not always coincide).  If this is allowed its the first step in going back to this:


www.coalwoodwestvirginia.com
 
2013-11-25 09:54:24 AM
And what about young subsidiaries that rebel against their parent companies, get all goth and start worshiping Cthulu?
 
2013-11-25 09:54:45 AM

Frank N Stein: You know what I hate? The corner store by my place, which is owned by Muslims, does not sell beef jerkey. Bastards.


I was unaware that beef jerkey was a type of employee.
 
2013-11-25 09:55:25 AM

syrynxx: Citizens United is one of the worst SCOTUS rulings in recent history, and using it as precedent is equally as bad.  Corporations are not people.



This. My guess is that in this case SCOTUS will reverse, and find some way to weasel away from applying the rationale underlying citizens united.  But the problem for the supreme court is that the appeals court's ruling is as legally correct as it is utterly ridiculous, because the appeals court was required to follow the Supreme Court precedent established in citizens united.

If the Supreme Court is going to recognize that a corporation has the same constitutional rights as a natural citizen, then where does it end?    It reaches new heights of absurdity to say that corporation as an entity is capable of having religious beliefs.    But it is equally absurd for the court to conclude that since corporations are people and money is speech, therefore corporations are entitled to spend unlimited sums of money to influence elections.
 
2013-11-25 09:55:29 AM
Murder them all. Every single one. Murder all the corporations.
 
2013-11-25 09:56:24 AM
Problem?

Don't like their policy? Don't f-ing work there and don't f-ing spend money in their store.
Vote with your wallet.
 
2013-11-25 09:57:14 AM
Sigh.  It's like the American right all bought copies of The Handmaiden's Tale and interpreted it as an instruction manual.
 
2013-11-25 09:57:18 AM

Chummer45: syrynxx: Citizens United is one of the worst SCOTUS rulings in recent history, and using it as precedent is equally as bad.  Corporations are not people.


This. My guess is that in this case SCOTUS will reverse, and find some way to weasel away from applying the rationale underlying citizens united.  But the problem for the supreme court is that the appeals court's ruling is as legally correct as it is utterly ridiculous, because the appeals court was required to follow the Supreme Court precedent established in citizens united.

If the Supreme Court is going to recognize that a corporation has the same constitutional rights as a natural citizen, then where does it end?    It reaches new heights of absurdity to say that corporation as an entity is capable of having religious beliefs.    But it is equally absurd for the court to conclude that since corporations are people and money is speech, therefore corporations are entitled to spend unlimited sums of money to influence elections.


It's the exact same people deciding deciding this case as decided Citizens. There is no reason to believe that they will rule in the favor of rational thought. In fact, the safe money is on them deciding the stupidest, most ruinous course possible and destroying this nation in the process
 
2013-11-25 09:57:22 AM

BMFPitt: 2) Businesses should not be required to provide any benefits they don't want to, that's between them and their employees.


My Amish coal mine doesn't belive in respirator technology.
 
2013-11-25 09:57:57 AM

Frank N Stein: You know what I hate? The corner store by my place, which is owned by Muslims, does not sell beef jerkey. Bastards.


I also am quite concerned about the unnecessary trampling of the rights of tubed meats.
 
2013-11-25 09:57:59 AM
This is about "religious" business people looking for an legal edge against competitors.
 
2013-11-25 09:58:17 AM

Robo Beat: Sigh.  It's like the American right all bought copies of The Handmaiden's Tale and interpreted it as an instruction manual.


We got a better deal than North Korea. Their instruction manual is 1984.
 
2013-11-25 09:58:49 AM

Kiriyama9000: Problem?

Don't like their policy? Don't f-ing work there and don't f-ing spend money in their store.
Vote with your wallet.



Problem?

Don't like the law?  Don't f-ing offer insurance.

That's the way the law works.
 
2013-11-25 10:00:01 AM
And if I claimed it is against my religion to serve colored people.......   what would happen.
 
2013-11-25 10:01:11 AM

Warlordtrooper: And if I claimed it is against my religion to serve colored people.......   what would happen.


You could probably get elected to office in South Carolina.
 
2013-11-25 10:01:13 AM

Warlordtrooper: And if I claimed it is against my religion to serve colored people.......   what would happen.


You cannot claim Libertarianism as a religion I don't think.
 
2013-11-25 10:01:32 AM

Headso: BMFPitt: 2) Businesses should not be required to provide any benefits they don't want to, that's between them and their employees.

My Amish coal mine doesn't belive in respirator technology.


You may have some difficulty in recruiting, then.
 
2013-11-25 10:02:15 AM

Warlordtrooper: And if I claimed it is against my religion to serve colored people.......   what would happen.


As a corporation, your rights are worth more than those of individuals, so you win. In fact, your religious right to enslave people and claim ownership of their offspring is guaranteed, too
 
2013-11-25 10:02:32 AM

coeyagi: Warlordtrooper: And if I claimed it is against my religion to serve colored people.......   what would happen.

You cannot claim Libertarianism as a religion I don't think.


Libertarianism is no longer a religion. They have all converted to the Cult of Jobs.
 
2013-11-25 10:02:40 AM

coeyagi: Warlordtrooper: And if I claimed it is against my religion to serve colored people.......   what would happen.

You cannot claim Libertarianism as a religion I don't think.



Why not?  wouldn't the government stepping in and claiming what set of beliefs are or aren't a religion violate the first amendment...  You could claim anything as a religious belief.
 
2013-11-25 10:02:44 AM

HotWingConspiracy: This is about "religious" business people looking for an legal edge against competitors.


Just like Jesus would have wanted.
 
2013-11-25 10:02:46 AM
On the face of it this seems like an absolute no-brainer. The idea that a corporation can have religious freedom at the expense of its employees' religious freedom seems antithetical to the concept of individual liberty that the USA was founded upon.
 
2013-11-25 10:02:55 AM

BMFPitt: Headso: BMFPitt: 2) Businesses should not be required to provide any benefits they don't want to, that's between them and their employees.

My Amish coal mine doesn't belive in respirator technology.

You may have some difficulty in recruiting, then.


History proves your naive view of the world wrong
 
2013-11-25 10:03:08 AM
I don't know if this is true everywhere, but the Hobby Lobby near where I live has a notice in its window stating that it has the "right" to search both customers' persons and their vehicles if said customer is suspected of shoplifting. Praise Jesus!

I'd like to say I don't go there, but they really do rock when it comes to art supplies.
 
2013-11-25 10:03:17 AM

UberDave: If they say that it is ok for corporations/businesses to deny contraception based on religions grounds, I wonder how they will work the decision not to include the practice of denying just about any kind of care based on religion.  It seems to me that the only way they could do this is to consider contraception a unique and outlying category set distinctively apart from things like general preventative care and vaccinations and blood transfusions and so on...(and that wouldn't be right, IMO).


The biggest problem with that idea is the prescription of birth control pills for other purposes, such as regulating menstrual cycles. That makes it less of a unique category.


BMFPitt: 1) No, they are not doing anything remotely like that.
2) Businesses should not be required to provide any benefits they don't want to, that's between them and their employees.
3) So long as other businesses are required to provide benefits they don't want to, nobody shouldn't get special treatment because they believe in an invisible friend who tells them to not provide certain benefits.


Couldn't disagree more. The Affordable Care Act mandated exactly what a "bare minimum" insurance plan covers. To do business in America, you are required to provide your fulltime workforce with coverage that meets those requirements. What your employees do with it isn't the business of your managers, shareholders, directors, or executives. It's between the employees and their healthcare providers.

Allowing corporations to exclude certain things based on religious beliefs sets a pretty nasty precedent. Think about it this way... if taxpayers could pick and choose which discretionary accounts receive their tax dollars, we would spend ten times more on education and infrastructure than we do on defense. But that isn't how it works - taxpayers contribute to government funding as a whole. Going with that... Hobby Lobby is already funding things they don't want to, through their own taxes. Hell, they are already funding contraception through Medicaid programs. They have no choice in that matter.

Federally-mandated employee benefits should be no different. Personal beliefs (more like political statements, but that's not the point) should only affect one's personal medical decisions... not the medical decisions and options of those who make money for them.
 
2013-11-25 10:06:59 AM

A Cave Geek: cman: Under the law they are

I'll believe that as soon as Texas executes one.


Corporations are rich people. When is the last time Texas executed a 1%'er? Executions are for the proles and the mentally retarded.
 
2013-11-25 10:08:31 AM

BMFPitt: Headso: BMFPitt: 2) Businesses should not be required to provide any benefits they don't want to, that's between them and their employees.

My Amish coal mine doesn't belive in respirator technology.

You may have some difficulty in recruiting, then.


if safety spending and health coverage were something companies did voluntarily we wouldn't have OSHA and the ACA in the first place.
 
2013-11-25 10:09:11 AM

Warlordtrooper: coeyagi: Warlordtrooper: And if I claimed it is against my religion to serve colored people.......   what would happen.

You cannot claim Libertarianism as a religion I don't think.


Why not?  wouldn't the government stepping in and claiming what set of beliefs are or aren't a religion violate the first amendment...  You could claim anything as a religious belief.


Well, my comment was mainly satirical in nature, pointing out that libertarianism is often just racism masquerading as a political movement.
 
2013-11-25 10:09:49 AM
Dear Hobby Lobby,

You are not an insurance provider.  No one is forcing YOU to cover a motherfarking thing.  STFU, please.

Sincerely,
Teufelaffe
 
2013-11-25 10:10:12 AM
Just one reason of many that employer based health insurance is a colossally stupid idea.

It's none of Hobby Lobby's farking business who their employees have sex with when off the clock.  And insurance companies WANT to provide birth control-- it's a hell of a lot cheaper than paying for a baby.
 
2013-11-25 10:11:26 AM

coeyagi: Warlordtrooper: coeyagi: Warlordtrooper: And if I claimed it is against my religion to serve colored people.......   what would happen.

You cannot claim Libertarianism as a religion I don't think.


Why not?  wouldn't the government stepping in and claiming what set of beliefs are or aren't a religion violate the first amendment...  You could claim anything as a religious belief.

Well, my comment was mainly satirical in nature, pointing out that libertarianism is often just racism masquerading as a political movement.


Thats bullshiat and you know it

Talk about GOP hyperpartisanship? Jesus, look in the mirror.
 
2013-11-25 10:13:45 AM
When employment becomes a luxury and not a means of delivering the means of survival to people, then we can talk about employers being able to capriciously offer or not offer those means of survival.

And yes, conservatives, access to contraception is a life-and-death issue, especially for poor people. You admit as much when you scream about welfare moms popping out kids that "we" can't afford.
 
Displayed 50 of 236 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report