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.

(WTOP)   Supreme Court to decide if you can use your religion as an excuse to make health decisions for your employees   (wtop.com) divider line 431
    More: Obvious, Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby, health law, reproductive healths, faiths  
•       •       •

4471 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Nov 2013 at 3:06 PM (43 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-26 03:32:21 PM
As to RFRA, There is the possibility that the court will find that fixing the health care crisis is not a compelling government interest, but given the language in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), i think its a bar that could be hurdled.
 
2013-11-26 03:32:21 PM

CujoQuarrel: / Ran into a woman who's job had cut her 40 hours to 28 hours to avoid the 'Obama tax'
// She is making ends meet now as a part time stripper


Did she also tell you that she was just doing it to work her way through college, and also that she really, really likes you and you aren't like all the other customers?
 
2013-11-26 03:33:07 PM

Carn: Mike_LowELL: I don't know where this thing that "corporations are people" started up.  If anything, corporations are more valuable to the world today, and thus deserve more rights than people.  Without corporations, you would not have McDonald's.  Think about that.  A world without McDonald's.  People would be starving without McDonald's.  Thank you, McDonald's.

[img.fark.net image 266x265]


www.rayivey.com.php5-21.dfw1-1.websitetestlink.com
 
2013-11-26 03:33:08 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: Knowing this supreme court, and assuming that Hobby Lobby isn't a communist Muslim front group -I'm going to assume that they stand a fighting chance. Thanks Bush.


Thomas Alito & Scalia will take this troll bait. But even Kennedy & Roberts aren't THAT stupid.
 
2013-11-26 03:33:20 PM
Look, I don't think contraception/abortion coverage in a health plan makes the owners of the company "responsible" in the eyes of God in any way, shape or form - so they all need to farking take a breath and stop this nonsense...

BUT...

Saying you don't want your company-provided health insurance plan to cover contraception   IS NOT MAKING A HEALTH DECISION FOR YOUR EMPLOYEES!!!

That's like saying "I'm not paying my employees a million dollars a year - so I'm making decisions on where they can live, and what kind of car they can drive."
 
2013-11-26 03:33:38 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: I think that forcing them provide a service that they find objectionable for whatever reason is worse.


I know conservatives find it objectionable if low wage workers get health insurance but I think considering hobby lobby isn't even human and has no feelings it will get over it.
 
2013-11-26 03:34:23 PM

Mike_LowELL: I don't know where this thing that "corporations are people" started up.  If anything, corporations are more valuable to the world today, and thus deserve more rights than people.  Without corporations, you would not have McDonald's.  Think about that.  A world without McDonald's.  People would be starving without McDonald's.  Thank you, McDonald's.


Never took a course in business law?
 
2013-11-26 03:35:49 PM

Cyberluddite: More significantly, the Supremes will essentially be deciding whether a corporation can have a religion and whether it has the right to free exercise of that religion.  Since they've already decided that corporations are "persons" with other First Amendment rights ("freedom of speech," i.e., freedom to spend unlimited money to influence elections), it doesn't seem much of a stretch to extend to corporations the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, does it?


What I really want to know is how a corporation (not the individuals who own it, but the corporation, a distinct legal entity) forms a personal relationship with a divine being.  And, if a corporation is a person, will I be prosecuted for homicide if I dissolve a corporation?  Where does its soul go when it has dissolved?  So many questions.
 
2013-11-26 03:36:17 PM

BravadoGT: Because the Federal government has imposed on itself a very tough standard with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act


You didn't answer his question.

Company X has 10,000 shares.
1000 shares are owned by a Christian, who is the CEO
1000 shares are owned by a Muslim, who is the President.
1000 shares are owned by a Hindu, who is the Chairman.
7000 shares are owned by the general public.
The chief of HR owns no shares, and is an atheist.

What is the religion of the employer?
 
2013-11-26 03:36:23 PM
This country is kind of stupid, isn't it?
 
2013-11-26 03:36:36 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: I've pissed a lot of people off with my viewpoint of this.

While I think the owners of HL are horribly misguided and WRONG (read that more than once before proceeding) I think that forcing them provide a service that they find objectionable for whatever reason is worse. I also think that you are horribly misguided if you want these services as a condition of your employment and then go to work for a company like HL.

It seems to me that there is only one subject where people should be allowed to make their own choice.


The end result of this loophole is that every multinational billion-dollar corporation will "find religion" that conveniently means they don't have to provide health insurance for any of their employees. In any case, we as a society have deemed some things more important than the exercise of free religion, notably in things like the Civil Rights Act. Even if your religion says that black people wear the stain of Cain (or Abel, I have no idea) you still have to let them in the door if you operate a public establishment.

Even if your religion says that Muslims are heretical terrorists, you still can't fire one because they're Muslim.
 
2013-11-26 03:37:25 PM

Donnchadha: So, could this easily be defeated by requesting evidence that the corporation, as a person-entity is actually active (or a registered member) in said religion?


Short: No.
Long: Of course not. Don't be obtuse.
 
2013-11-26 03:37:37 PM

Cubicle Jockey: BravadoGT: Because the Federal government has imposed on itself a very tough standard with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

You didn't answer his question.

Company X has 10,000 shares.
1000 shares are owned by a Christian, who is the CEO
1000 shares are owned by a Muslim, who is the President.
1000 shares are owned by a Hindu, who is the Chairman.
7000 shares are owned by the general public.
The chief of HR owns no shares, and is an atheist.

What is the religion of the employer?


Whichever religion that gets the proxy votes.
 
2013-11-26 03:37:54 PM
FTA: "Conestoga Wood is owned by a Mennonite family who "object as a matter of conscience to facilitating contraception that may prevent the implantation of a humsan embryo in the womb."


What is a humsan?
 
2013-11-26 03:38:10 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: The end result of this loophole is that every multinational billion-dollar corporation will "find religion" that conveniently means they don't have to provide health insurance for any of their employees.


No Company has to provide health insurance for their employees; never have. They do it because they get a tax break and its part of competitive compensation packages.
 
2013-11-26 03:38:31 PM

vygramul: No one is forcing the employee to use contraceptives, so we're not forcing stuff onto them anymore than we force roads onto tax-payers who walk everywhere.


You fail to see the problem because you are unable to acknowledge that there is a fundamental difference between a private business and the government.
 
2013-11-26 03:38:36 PM

hervatski: You can't force a person to do something but you can't also allow them to NOT give something they are due. Does that make sense?

If the affordable Care act says "you give people contraceptives and they have to take it" that means Youre forcing the company to actively force itself on someone, which isn't right.

But the law says the company cannot deny care that the person requires. I think that's where its gonna come down to.


here's my argument.

that money is not the corporation's money. it's the employee's money. it's their deferred compensation. the company you work for should not be allowed to tell you what you can or cannot buy with your own money.
 
2013-11-26 03:38:54 PM
I'm split. On the one hand, I can understand the stance of not forcing a company to pay for something which violates its belief system HOWEVER, its forcing its belief system on its employees which is not right either. The argument can be made that if someone is working there by choice and could find work elsewhere...etc.

Its the forcing the company's religious beliefs (which it shouldn't have in the first place) on their workers which is incorrect. At the end of the day, I doubt they really care all that much about their religion but trying to find a loophole to not have to pay the benefits and save money to pad their profit margin.

I'm astounded when I watch CSPAN how many times religion is used as a platform. What happened to separation of church and state?

/I'm equally offended by all religions but uphold the ability for others to practice as they choose.
//Just not on my lawn. Or in my uterus.
 
2013-11-26 03:39:47 PM
Did they pay any amount for insurance with BC? Yes?

Then fark off.
 
2013-11-26 03:39:49 PM

mithras_angel: So, if this were to pass through the Supreme Court, it would indicate that any corporation which has a religious objection to ~any~ law, would be able to file against that law, citing this case.


How long, then, before a corporation's executives creates a faith that has religious objections to paying taxes?  I'll note that certain faiths (and certainly some wingnuts) have this belief already.


Where would this end?


Well, practically speaking, it's going to be exercised most when the Federal government is trying to take new action or impose new laws (aka take more power).  When they are doing so and people can make a good-faith and well-documented complaint showing that it does infringe on their religious freedom, then I say good--the government's power SHOULD be checked by the courts.  It deserves the extra scrutiny.

You'd rather have it some other way?
 
2013-11-26 03:39:55 PM

Coastalgrl: I can understand the stance of not forcing a company to pay for something which violates its belief system


How can a corporation have a belief system? A corporation is a legal fiction.
 
2013-11-26 03:40:22 PM

Headso: I know conservatives find it objectionable if low wage workers get health insurance


You don't know shiat if that's the conclusion you came to.
 
2013-11-26 03:40:50 PM
Never worked at a company with a healthcare plan that covered ED medications, unless they were prescribed to solve other non-ED issues.

Also, if a corporation's religous identity changes after they signed a contract, and the obligations of that contract are in opposition to their new religous convictions, would they be allowed to renege or null the contract?

I assume companies closely alligined with the Jehovah's Witness or Christian Scientist faiths would choose not to offer healthcare to employees, or they've worked with some insurance providers to develop a plan that meets their religous standard?

I'd say the best solution is to avoid working for religously affiliated companies, let them hire the dregs left to them from thier on theological perspective, and allow them to fail in the free market.

My company may not represent all my beliefs, but if they begin to become plain old evil or just stupid, they won't be my company for long. I'm not going down with any ship that has a dunce cap on their flag.

/Don't lend your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools. ...
 
2013-11-26 03:40:57 PM

Mike_LowELL: Irving Maimway: What I'd like to know is if corporations are people, why can other people own them?

Congratulations, you just figured out why anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of American civics can figure out that the 13th Amendment is unconstitutional.


The 18th is the only possible unconstitutional amendment to the constitution.
 
2013-11-26 03:41:22 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: The end result of this loophole is that every multinational billion-dollar corporation will "find religion" that conveniently means they don't have to provide health insurance for any of their employees.


Just like they did before ACA right?
 
2013-11-26 03:41:27 PM
In case no one posted this yet:

Washington's Hobby Lobby Lobbies To Strengthen Hobbies
http://www.theonion.com/articles/washingtons-hobby-lobby-lobbies-to- st rengthen-hobb,33556/
 
2013-11-26 03:41:40 PM

eurotrader: If taken to the asinine conclusion of the argument by Hobby lobby and their ilk, any person working for them must agree to all of their beliefs and since they belief providing payment as part of employee compensation for insurance means the employee has no right to private medical decisions; do  for profit business have the right to install monitoring equipment in employee's home and person to insure they do not engage in any behavior the company finds distasteful? Can the companies track any monies paid  to employees to insure they do not spend money on things like alcohol and condoms if the companies religion forbid them.


You can just stop at asinine.  Employees are not required to adhere....only tolerate.  If they are not willing to tolerate the limitations of the company benefits, they are welcome to find some other place to work.
 
2013-11-26 03:41:49 PM

DamnYankees: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: The end result of this loophole is that every multinational billion-dollar corporation will "find religion" that conveniently means they don't have to provide health insurance for any of their employees.

No Company has to provide health insurance for their employees; never have. They do it because they get a tax break and its part of competitive compensation packages.


You haven't been paying much attention for the last few years, have you?

ACA (Obamacare) requires a company to provide health insurance if they have enough employees (I think it's 50) or pay a fine.

Companies are getting around this by limiting the number of full time employees and going with a lot of part timers.  Some are just saying "fark it, pay the fine", because it's cheaper.
 
2013-11-26 03:42:26 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Headso: I know conservatives find it objectionable if low wage workers get health insurance

You don't know shiat if that's the conclusion you came to.


says the guy saying companies have human feelings.
 
2013-11-26 03:42:44 PM

OgreMagi: ACA (Obamacare) requires a company to provide health insurance if they have enough employees (I think it's 50) or pay a fine.


Yeah, but that's not in place yet. I was speaking as to the current and past state of affairs.

OgreMagi: Companies are getting around this by limiting the number of full time employees and going with a lot of part timers.


There's no evidence this is actually happening.
 
2013-11-26 03:42:58 PM
If corporations are people, does that mean declaring bankruptcy is committing suicide?

Would that still be legal?
 
2013-11-26 03:43:21 PM

DamnYankees: Coastalgrl: I can understand the stance of not forcing a company to pay for something which violates its belief system

How can a corporation have a belief system? A corporation is a legal fiction.


Yeah I don't agree with it either but in the article they mention the corporation personhood thing. Was trying to follow potential legal logic.
 
2013-11-26 03:43:44 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: I've pissed a lot of people off with my viewpoint of this.

While I think the owners of HL are horribly misguided and WRONG (read that more than once before proceeding) I think that forcing them provide a service that they find objectionable for whatever reason is worse. I also think that you are horribly misguided if you want these services as a condition of your employment and then go to work for a company like HL.

It seems to me that there is only one subject where people should be allowed to make their own choice.


Forcing them to what? Provide insurance? How is that different than forcing them to pay minimum wage, a safe work environment, unchained emergency exits, breaks in a 8 hour day etc. ?

And sure, in some happy unicorn world I can just choose the happyland never bad corp as my employer and not choose scumbag asshole corp. But that world doesn't exist, fark-o.
 
2013-11-26 03:43:55 PM

DamnYankees: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: DamnYankees: No, in light of the VRA decision, one of the all time worst opinions in court history, the court seems to have completely gone of the deep end and said "fark it, we're just gonna make shiat up entirely", but that's how its supposed to work at least.

No argument with you there. The VRA decision is going to down in history on par with other decisions like Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson as a "what the hell were they thinking?"

I think its worse in purely legal terms than Plessy. Plessy was a terrible decision in that the legal logic used to uphold separate but equal actually did make abstract sense, it just didn't match the empirical reality that separate wasn't actually equal. The VRA decision is just nonsense, without any constitutional basis for it.


Is there any actual rule that says the Supreme Court is supposed to base its decisions on actual evidence, as opposed to just making stuff up based on whatever vague hunches the Justices have about the world outside their chambers?
 
2013-11-26 03:44:05 PM

Torgo_of_Manos: Cyberluddite: More significantly, the Supremes will essentially be deciding whether a corporation can have a religion and whether it has the right to free exercise of that religion.  Since they've already decided that corporations are "persons" with other First Amendment rights ("freedom of speech," i.e., freedom to spend unlimited money to influence elections), it doesn't seem much of a stretch to extend to corporations the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, does it?

I still think that this movie is more prophecy that anything....

[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 303x166]


"Jonathan! Jonathan! Jonathan!"
 
2013-11-26 03:44:13 PM

mayIFark: If corporations are people, does that mean declaring bankruptcy is committing suicide?

Would that still be legal?


You do know individuals can also declare bankruptcy, right? You don't need to kill yourself if you're in debt.
 
2013-11-26 03:44:23 PM

Cyberluddite: Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles.


Wow, so, like, they don't accept credit cards because they refuse to do business with corporations that flagrantly commit the sin of usury?
 
2013-11-26 03:46:31 PM

Irving Maimway: Mike_LowELL: I don't know where this thing that "corporations are people" started up.  If anything, corporations are more valuable to the world today, and thus deserve more rights than people.  Without corporations, you would not have McDonald's.  Think about that.  A world without McDonald's.  People would be starving without McDonald's.  Thank you, McDonald's.

What I'd like to know is if corporations are people, why can other people own them?


Other people can own them, dismember them, abandon them, dissolve them . . . .   Not really anything like what you can actually do with a person.  But they're people anyway.  If you don't believe the Supreme Court, then take Mitt Romney's word on it.
 
2013-11-26 03:46:34 PM

DamnYankees: mayIFark: If corporations are people, does that mean declaring bankruptcy is committing suicide?

Would that still be legal?

You do know individuals can also declare bankruptcy, right? You don't need to kill yourself if you're in debt.


I was comparing declaring bankruptcy with committing suicide, not with declaring bankruptcy in personal level.

But if you, so are you still allowed to voluntarily shutdown a company?
 
2013-11-26 03:46:47 PM

Headso: CujoQuarrel: / Ran into a woman who's job had cut her 40 hours to 28 hours to avoid the 'Obama tax'
// She is  making ends meet now as a part time stripper


What strip club were you at?


A local one. Not part of any major chain.

I prefer the smaller 'sleazier' ones
 
2013-11-26 03:46:50 PM

OgreMagi: Companies are getting around this by limiting the number of full time employees and going with a lot of part timers.  Some are just saying "fark it, pay the fine", because it's cheaper.


And it would be even cheaper on them to not even have to pay the fine either because of a religious exemption.
 
2013-11-26 03:48:24 PM

CujoQuarrel: Headso: CujoQuarrel: / Ran into a woman who's job had cut her 40 hours to 28 hours to avoid the 'Obama tax'
// She is  making ends meet now as a part time stripper


What strip club were you at?

A local one. Not part of any major chain.

I prefer the smaller 'sleazier' ones


So, ACA is a good thing then, after all? Providing us with fresh new faces?
 
2013-11-26 03:49:15 PM
well shiat , I going to need a bigger bowl of popcorn.

seriously though the SCOTUS needs to smack this shiat down.
 
2013-11-26 03:49:35 PM

Coastalgrl: I'm split. On the one hand, I can understand the stance of not forcing a company to pay for something which violates its belief system HOWEVER, its forcing its belief system on its employees which is not right either. The argument can be made that if someone is working there by choice and could find work elsewhere...etc.

Its the forcing the company's religious beliefs (which it shouldn't have in the first place) on their workers which is incorrect. At the end of the day, I doubt they really care all that much about their religion but trying to find a loophole to not have to pay the benefits and save money to pad their profit margin.

I'm astounded when I watch CSPAN how many times religion is used as a platform. What happened to separation of church and state?

/I'm equally offended by all religions but uphold the ability for others to practice as they choose.
//Just not on my lawn. Or in my uterus.


Problem is, current Republicans really don't think it's YOUR uterus.
 
2013-11-26 03:50:04 PM

DamnYankees: Coastalgrl: I can understand the stance of not forcing a company to pay for something which violates its belief system

How can a corporation have a belief system? A corporation is a legal fiction.


If Congress passes a law saying dolphins are people, then they get all the rights inherent. Even though they aren't actually people.
 
2013-11-26 03:50:19 PM
Easy way around this. Provide health insurance that includes BC. Make all employees sign an ethics clause that prevents them from using it. Fire anyone who files a claim for BC.
 
2013-11-26 03:50:33 PM

Mike_LowELL: I don't know where this thing that "corporations are people" started up.  If anything, corporations are more valuable to the world today, and thus deserve more rights than people.  Without corporations, you would not have McDonald's.  Think about that.  A world without McDonald's.  People would be starving without McDonald's.  Thank you, McDonald's.

dontmesswithtaxes.typepad.com
This doesn't taste like any Scottish food I've ever had.
 
2013-11-26 03:50:34 PM

Cyberluddite: More significantly, the Supremes will essentially be deciding whether a corporation can have a religion and whether it has the right to free exercise of that religion.  Since they've already decided that corporations are "persons" with other First Amendment rights ("freedom of speech," i.e., freedom to spend unlimited money to influence elections), it doesn't seem much of a stretch to extend to corporations the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, does it?


would that not mean, then, that if the corporation was compelled to pay for contraception coverage, that it would not infringe on the religious beliefs of the individuals running the company, because it would be the corporate person who's religious beliefs the coverage would be measured against right?  Good luck then determining what the religion is of the corporation then, but I don't recall much from the bible about how businesses get into heaven.
 
2013-11-26 03:50:43 PM
Dear lord, please allow this ruling to give me the ability to have chiropractors be ineligible to be the directing "physician" for withers comp claims. Will gladly start my own religion for this.

/in twenty years have yet to see a treatment plan that didn't involve weekly visits to said chiropractor. A hundred different kinds of injuries and they all need the same treatment from the same guy - what are the odds?
 
2013-11-26 03:50:44 PM

Cubicle Jockey: BravadoGT: Because the Federal government has imposed on itself a very tough standard with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

You didn't answer his question.

Company X has 10,000 shares.
1000 shares are owned by a Christian, who is the CEO
1000 shares are owned by a Muslim, who is the President.
1000 shares are owned by a Hindu, who is the Chairman.
7000 shares are owned by the general public.
The chief of HR owns no shares, and is an atheist.

What is the religion of the employer?


Depends on how the shareholders vote.
 
Displayed 50 of 431 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report