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  
•       •       •

4470 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Nov 2013 at 3:06 PM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



431 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-26 12:31:50 PM
This won't end well if the SCOTUS allows the companies to deny contraception. The JW plan will not include blood transfusions, the christian scientists plan will include only prayer.
 
2013-11-26 12:33:11 PM
What religion is The Hobby Lobby, anyway?
 
2013-11-26 12:36:04 PM
I think if the "business" is primarily religious, like a church not an arts and crafts store, than an argument could be made.

Otherwise, no.
 
2013-11-26 12:41:47 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: What religion is The Hobby Lobby, anyway?


Cheap Chinese Productionism.
 
2013-11-26 12:46:45 PM
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?
 
2013-11-26 12:50:55 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?


That is the interesting point. I think they completely screwed the pooch on the corporations are people thing, let's see if they come back for sloppy seconds.
 
2013-11-26 12:52:59 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?


Good way to look at it and probably even an argument that will be explicitly named.
 
2013-11-26 12:55:22 PM

Blues_X: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: What religion is The Hobby Lobby, anyway?

Cheap Chinese Productionism.


Ah. Methodist.
 
2013-11-26 12:55:23 PM
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.
 
2013-11-26 12:58:54 PM
You just hurt my brain, Mike_LoweLL.
 
2013-11-26 01:00:33 PM
There are two things you learn right fast about corporations: first, they want you to get a wife so you have some coont nagging you to work harder to get promotions. And second, they want you to have kids, so you feel tied down. Workplaces frowning on contraception isn't about being pro-life. It's about being pro-slavery, and you're the slave.
 
2013-11-26 01:09:44 PM

R.A.Danny: You just hurt my brain, Mike_LoweLL.


That is the weakness inside of you leaving.  Embrace conservatism.  Embrace the chalice of freedom.  Drink from the chalice.  Rise.
 
2013-11-26 01:17:43 PM

Mike_LowELL: R.A.Danny: You just hurt my brain, Mike_LoweLL.

That is the weakness inside of you leaving.  Embrace conservatism.  Embrace the chalice of freedom.  Drink from the chalice.  Rise.


I took your advice and embraced the chalice, but I did it a little too tightly and got Freedom all over my shirt.

You owe me a new shirt.
 
2013-11-26 01:34:33 PM

gilgigamesh: Mike_LowELL: R.A.Danny: You just hurt my brain, Mike_LoweLL.

That is the weakness inside of you leaving.  Embrace conservatism.  Embrace the chalice of freedom.  Drink from the chalice.  Rise.

I took your advice and embraced the chalice, but I did it a little too tightly and got Freedom all over my shirt.

You owe me a new shirt.


I hear it comes out with a little white wash.
 
2013-11-26 01:35:14 PM
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.
 
2013-11-26 01:36:44 PM
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.
 
2013-11-26 01:41:18 PM
In other news, my Rastafarian beanie company's health insurance policy now only covers vegetarian organic food and marijuana for illnesses.
 
2013-11-26 01:42:30 PM

swaniefrmreddeer: This won't end well if the SCOTUS allows the companies to deny contraception. The JW plan will not include blood transfusions, the christian scientists plan will include only prayer.


They're not "denying contraception" - the employer would simply not have to pay for it. The employees would still be free to go out into the real world and pay for it on their own.
 
2013-11-26 01:45:27 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.


Actually I believe it just requires employer-provided insurance plans to offer contraception. Which is actually free coverage, because insurance companies would rather shell out for bc pills than the costs associated with an unplanned pregnancy. For obvious reasons.

For some reason this is controversial. Boner pills, naturally, still 100% okey doke.
 
2013-11-26 01:47:34 PM
In other news, the Catholic university I work at got rid of its "no contraception coverage" plan option for 2014, which no one other than the Jesuit priest faculty members ever picked.
 
2013-11-26 01:48:05 PM

swaniefrmreddeer: This won't end well if the SCOTUS allows the companies to deny contraception. The JW plan will not include blood transfusions, the christian scientists plan will include only prayer.


Correct. SCOTUS extending personhood to corporations ends in them getting the right to vote...one vote per share.

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: What religion is The Hobby Lobby, anyway?


Worship of Mammon...obviously.
 
2013-11-26 01:50:40 PM
At this point, we've established that corporations are people and people have the right to free expression of religion, therefore transitive property.

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? At most, one could only provide evidence that the people who make up the corporation are members, but not the corporation itself -- which is the whole premise behind corporate personhood.
 
2013-11-26 01:50:42 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?


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

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-11-26 01:51:42 PM
Ok I am going to form a religion that requires contraception and medical services, then I will suggest my flock finds employment with companies like Hobby Lobby. What happens when you have conflicting religious requirements to be met? Does the corporation win or do the people?
 
2013-11-26 01:51:46 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.


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.
 
2013-11-26 01:52:27 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?


Exactly right. This makes absolutely no sense at all. The whole point of corporations is that they are separate from their owners. In order to pierce the corporate veil, really specific situations need to apply. How the fark is this supposed to work with religion? What percentage of a companies equity ownership (or are we including creditors also) need to agree on a religious belief for it to be attributable to the corporation they own securities of?
 
2013-11-26 01:56:11 PM

Cyberluddite: 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),


The first amendment doesn't say anything about people having the right of free speech. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech." Any law which abridges freedom of speech is unconstitutional.

Otherwise, I could pass all sorts of crazy-ass laws. Don't like abortion? Pass a law making it illegal for anyone acting as a representative of Planned Parenthood to lobby on their behalf to seek federal, state, or private grants. Don't like hamburgers? You could make it illegal for McDonald's to say their hamburgers taste good. Hey, McDonald's doesn't have the right of free speech, right? They could make it illegal for Fark to parody the news, since it might hurt the news' feelings. Fark.com is a corporation and doesn't have the right of free speech to satirize the news after all.
 
2013-11-26 01:56:24 PM
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.
 
2013-11-26 01:57:32 PM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Any law which abridges freedom of speech is unconstitutional.


This is true. The key issue in Citizens United was not to say that corporations have the right to speak, but that corporations have the ability to speak. That, to me, is completely nonsensical and the root of the issue.
 
2013-11-26 02:00:28 PM

DamnYankees: This is true. The key issue in Citizens United was not to say that corporations have the right to speak, but that corporations have the ability to speak. That, to me, is completely nonsensical and the root of the issue.


I disagree. I think the key issue was that the right of a company to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence an election outweighs the public good of having public elections that aren't influenced by obscene contributions of soft money. I think any rational person looking at it would see that the public good of having less money in politics outweighs the freedom of speech.
 
2013-11-26 02:01:36 PM

DamnYankees: 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?

Exactly right. This makes absolutely no sense at all. The whole point of corporations is that they are separate from their owners. In order to pierce the corporate veil, really specific situations need to apply. How the fark is this supposed to work with religion? What percentage of a companies equity ownership (or are we including creditors also) need to agree on a religious belief for it to be attributable to the corporation they own securities of?


That gives the mischievous lawyer in me the idea of personally suing the owners of a company on the basis that the company sharing its owners' religious beliefs muddies its identity as a separate entity.

I have to admit, this "corporate religion" idea is so nonsensical it is just chock full of unintended consequences-goodness.
 
2013-11-26 02:03:59 PM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: DamnYankees: This is true. The key issue in Citizens United was not to say that corporations have the right to speak, but that corporations have the ability to speak. That, to me, is completely nonsensical and the root of the issue.

I disagree. I think the key issue was that the right of a company to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence an election outweighs the public good of having public elections that aren't influenced by obscene contributions of soft money. I think any rational person looking at it would see that the public good of having less money in politics outweighs the freedom of speech.


Legally speaking, that's not what the case turned on though. If it was simply a question of weighing public policy choices, that choice would have been left for the legislature. The only way for the court to overturn that choice is to assert some right on the part of the aggrieved party which is being violated.

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.
 
2013-11-26 02:05:00 PM
My religion forbids organ transplants, antibiotics, and a whole bunch of other expensive stuff... I expect to save a lot of money on insurance for my employees.
 
2013-11-26 02:05:24 PM
Religious business owners should just not offer health insurance at all and make their employees buy it on the exchanges. Won't that make everybody happy?

Nobody's forcing them to offer health insurance and therefore their rights are not being violated.
 
2013-11-26 02:05:32 PM

swaniefrmreddeer: This won't end well if the SCOTUS allows the companies to deny contraception.


I think they're only talking about the morning after abortion pills and regular abortions, not contraception.
 
2013-11-26 02:06:30 PM

Triumph: swaniefrmreddeer: This won't end well if the SCOTUS allows the companies to deny contraception.

I think they're only talking about the morning after abortion pills and regular abortions, not contraception.


What's the legal basis by which a corporation would have the right to deny one form of medical care on the basis of religious belief, but not another?
 
2013-11-26 02:08:39 PM

dramboxf: I think if the "business" is primarily religious, like a church not an arts and crafts store, than an argument could be made.

Otherwise, no.


I nonconcur with your exclusions. How about an absolute no?

Can a person be fired for NOT using birth control if the business has a no-child policy of limiting population growth?

Can a person get fired for buying condoms if working for a Catholic Church hospital?

Ain't your employer's business if you are of a different faith, belief system or none at all, IMHO.
 
2013-11-26 02:08:50 PM

gilgigamesh: You owe me a new shirt.


I would endorse your legal claims if you were making over 250,000 dollars a year, but alas, the purpose of the courts are to ensure that people of my stature and success can hold onto their money.  You may consider this unfair, but this is the only way to protect the American dream, to make sure anyone can succeed in this country, and when they get to the top, no number of disastrous decisions can take that away from them.
 
2013-11-26 02:09:09 PM

DamnYankees: Triumph: swaniefrmreddeer: This won't end well if the SCOTUS allows the companies to deny contraception.

I think they're only talking about the morning after abortion pills and regular abortions, not contraception.

What's the legal basis by which a corporation would have the right to deny one form of medical care on the basis of religious belief, but not another?


Oh, I don't really think there is one, I just hate it when people call abortion contraception.
 
2013-11-26 02:10:36 PM
i.imgur.com
At GreenAdder Industries, carbs aren't just recommended. They're mandatory.
 
2013-11-26 02:11:29 PM

Triumph: I think they're only talking about the morning after abortion pills and regular abortions, not contraception.


That's really irrelevant. Once the court rules that they can deny Plan B, it's unlikely they will turn around and deny them the right to not carry contraceptive pills on their insurance if they would modify it later.
 
2013-11-26 02:14:09 PM

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?"
 
2013-11-26 02:15:06 PM
Ironically Hobby Lobby sold me all the tools I need to whittle my own abortion clinic.
 
2013-11-26 02:15:18 PM

DamnYankees: Triumph: swaniefrmreddeer: This won't end well if the SCOTUS allows the companies to deny contraception.

I think they're only talking about the morning after abortion pills and regular abortions, not contraception.

What's the legal basis by which a corporation would have the right to deny one form of medical care on the basis of religious belief, but not another?


The pro-life crowd is eagerly looking forward to this decision to see if it will provide a lever to banning abortion.
 
2013-11-26 02:15:56 PM

itcamefromschenectady: Religious business owners should just not offer health insurance at all and make their employees buy it on the exchanges. Won't that make everybody happy?

Nobody's forcing them to offer health insurance and therefore their rights are not being violated.


If they have more than a certain number of employees (50, is it?), then yes, they are required to offer health insurance to their full-time employees under the Affordable Care Act.
 
2013-11-26 02:16:53 PM

Cyberluddite: If they have more than a certain number of employees (50, is it?), then yes, they are required to offer health insurance to their full-time employees under the Affordable Care Act.


Nope, they could always pay a fine.
 
2013-11-26 02:17:02 PM

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.
 
2013-11-26 02:17:27 PM

vygramul: 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.

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.


That's what I'm saying. How can they say "you can't force us to give something to someone who asks for something Thats within their right to take." If the law was forcing them to force contraceptives on people and they say their religion is against that that's one thing. But its saying that you can't deny someone a right.
 
2013-11-26 02:17:38 PM
gilgigamesh:
Actually I believe it just requires employer-provided insurance plans to offer contraception. Which is actually free coverage, because insurance companies would rather shell out for bc pills than the costs associated with an unplanned pregnancy. For obvious reasons.

Exactly.  Companies can exclude birth control, if they're prepared to pay more.  And then the employee can go out and get a policy rider for BC, and get a rebate for doing so.
 
2013-11-26 02:18:08 PM

dj_bigbird: swaniefrmreddeer: This won't end well if the SCOTUS allows the companies to deny contraception. The JW plan will not include blood transfusions, the christian scientists plan will include only prayer.

They're not "denying contraception" - the employer would simply not have to pay for it. The employees would still be free to go out into the real world and pay for it on their own.



Would they be allowed to wear it to work?
 
2013-11-26 02:27:43 PM

Cyberluddite: itcamefromschenectady: Religious business owners should just not offer health insurance at all and make their employees buy it on the exchanges. Won't that make everybody happy?

Nobody's forcing them to offer health insurance and therefore their rights are not being violated.

If they have more than a certain number of employees (50, is it?), then yes, they are required to offer health insurance to their full-time employees under the Affordable Care Act.


If they are ruled against it, they'll probably price their employee contribution to the highest level possible, thereby making it too expensive for most part time or low-level employees to afford.  You know, just to be dicks.
 
2013-11-26 02:42:50 PM
Companies never had a religion until Romney made them people.
 
2013-11-26 02:55:51 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.


What I'd like to know is if corporations are people, why can other people own them?
 
2013-11-26 02:56:56 PM
Making them into  people was easy for him, but making them into  Mormons has proven to be more difficult.
 
2013-11-26 02:57:22 PM

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.
 
2013-11-26 02:57:41 PM

Donnchadha: At this point, we've established that corporations are people and people have the right to free expression of religion, therefore transitive property.

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? At most, one could only provide evidence that the people who make up the corporation are members, but not the corporation itself -- which is the whole premise behind corporate personhood.


This whole notion that the Supreme Court will decide this case with an attention played to the whole "corporations are people so corporations have religion now" is ridiculous.  SCOTUS doesn't have to play this little "what if?" game, and they're not going to.  It's sufficient that the human owners of the corporation assert that they hold these religious beliefs.   The organizational structure of the entity is irrelevant.  The Supreme Court isn't going waste ink on pondering why if, let's say three individuals who share the same religious beliefs (family members, in the SCOTUS case) and open a business together---for some reason, would lose their religious voice because they chose to file articles of incorporation for the venture.

The issue is whether or not the government can compel employers--any employers--to pay to fund services they find religiously objectionable and a condition of doing business in this country (i.e. "whether profit-making corporations can assert religious beliefs under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act or the First Amendment provision guaranteeing Americans the right to believe and worship as they choose."

And that's all they'll decide.  They are the ultimate government employees--not inclined to stick their necks out a inch more than they have to or do more work than they are asked.
 
2013-11-26 02:57:43 PM

Cyberluddite: Making them into  people was easy for him, but making them into  Mormons has proven to be more difficult.


Oops.  That was supposed to be in response to this:

edmo: Companies never had a religion until Romney made them people.

 
2013-11-26 03:02:54 PM

BravadoGT: The issue is whether or not the government can compel employers--any employers--to pay to fund services they find religiously objectionable and a condition of doing business in this country (i.e. "whether profit-making corporations can assert religious beliefs under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act or the First Amendment provision guaranteeing Americans the right to believe and worship as they choose."


What is an "employer" though? That's a huge issue here. The "employer" in the context of a corporation is the corporation, not the shareholders. On what legal basis do you attribute beliefs of shareholders to beliefs of the company? You might have Company X wholly-owned by a Catholic priest. In that case, you might want to conflate the employer's beliefs with that of the shareholder. But why should that be permitted in the case of religious beliefs, but not, say, debt? If Company X owes me money but doesn't have it, I don't get to go after the Catholic priest - we don't break the corporate veil. Why should we do so here?
 
2013-11-26 03:06:22 PM
I just happened to check the "About Us" page on Hobby Lobby's corporate website to see what their corporate structure is like, and I didn't find much about that, but I did learn the following about the company:

At Hobby Lobby, we value our customers and employees and are committed to:

 - Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles.
 - Offering our customers exceptional selection and value in the crafts and home decor market.
 - Serving our employees and their families by establishing a work environment and company policies that build character, strengthen individuals and nurture families.
 - Providing a return on the owner's investment, sharing the Lord's blessings with our employees, and investing in our community.

We believe that it is by God's grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured. He has been faithful in the past, and we trust Him for our future.


Damn.  These guys are pretty hardcore.
 
2013-11-26 03:07:30 PM
At my last company, the company health plan would cover Viagra or other ED drugs but not my wifes birth control

Why yes, the owner was right wing.
 
2013-11-26 03:09:58 PM
Rats.
 
2013-11-26 03:10:24 PM
If a corporation kill somebody, can it get the death penalty?
 
2013-11-26 03:10:25 PM
I do not have a good feeling about this.

I think there is something to be said for saying that laws that harm a business that is inextricably linked to religion are problematic, like mandating a kosher bakery be open on Saturdays, or requiring a Mormon restaurant to serve alcohol or caffeine, but for a regular business that won't have its business operations affected by regulations, I don't think they have any standing, since the corporation is not the person, and the corporation has no inherent religion if it is a secular business.
 
2013-11-26 03:10:31 PM
Jesus told me to tell you what you can have and what you may not have.
You can't prove that he didn't.
 
2013-11-26 03:11:51 PM
What if your employer is a Christian Scientist, which doesn't allow a whole lot of pretty basic medical stuff.  Or how about $cientologists who wouldn't allow psychiatric treatment or therapy other than their e-meter scam?

If they rule in favor of the religious whack jobs, it will completely destroy our right to make our own choices.  It will put those choices in the hands of farking morons (or cheap bastards looking for an easy way out of offering coverage).
 
2013-11-26 03:12:32 PM

nmrsnr: I do not have a good feeling about this.

I think there is something to be said for saying that laws that harm a business that is inextricably linked to religion are problematic, like mandating a kosher bakery be open on Saturdays, or requiring a Mormon restaurant to serve alcohol or caffeine, but for a regular business that won't have its business operations affected by regulations, I don't think they have any standing, since the corporation is not the person, and the corporation has no inherent religion if it is a secular business.


That's an interesting comparison - the idea of passing a law saying that every restaurant *must* serve beer, for example. I'm trying to imagine a situation where that could be unconstitutional, but I'm not seeing it. It would be really horrible public policy, but absent a showing of discriminatory intent against Mormons, I think it should stand as a law.
 
2013-11-26 03:12:48 PM
"So is it your testimony today that your company's religion won't allow it to pay for insurance plans that cover anything but routine checkups?"
 
2013-11-26 03:13:13 PM
I have the opposite religious belief: every woman CAPABLE of getting pregnant who is not actively TRYING to get pregnant should be forced to take birth control.

My religious belief is just as valid as theirs.

/in that it isn't even remotely valid and it's thinly disguised misogyny.
 
2013-11-26 03:13:53 PM

dramboxf: I think if the "business" is primarily religious, like a church not an arts and crafts store, than an argument could be made.

Otherwise, no.


What about a school that is run by a church, and teaches a specific view of abortion?
 
2013-11-26 03:16:38 PM
The whole "corporations are people" thing was a legal fiction used purely as an analogy for certain legal doctrines.  The fact that the Supreme Court of the United States decided to turn this into a literal statement is beyond stupid, especially considering they all went to top-tier law schools.  It is, without a doubt, the worst SCOTUS decision in the 21st century.
 
2013-11-26 03:17:41 PM
So corporations get "religious rights" now?

"Oh mighty dollar, maker of profit and provider of hookers and blow ..."
 
2013-11-26 03:18:49 PM

Transubstantive: The whole "corporations are people" thing was a legal fiction used purely as an analogy for certain legal doctrines.  The fact that the Supreme Court of the United States decided to turn this into a literal statement is beyond stupid, especially considering they all went to top-tier law schools.  It is, without a doubt, the worst SCOTUS decision in the 21st century.


newsbusters.org

demands a recount
 
2013-11-26 03:19:46 PM

Cyberluddite: More significantly, the Supremes will essentially be deciding whether a corporation can have a religion


So is there an afterlife for corporations? Like dogs, do they all go to heaven?
 
2013-11-26 03:20:16 PM
Can a corporation be baptized in a body of water?
Can it take communion?
Can it go on Hajj?
Can it have a bar-mitzvah?
 
2013-11-26 03:20:45 PM
Has anybody noticed that Hobby Lobby isn't a corporation?

It is a privately-owed company, which significantly changes the issue.

The owners are still coonts, but still - it's unrelated from corporate personhood.
 
2013-11-26 03:20:53 PM
If you don't like it, don't work there and don't take their benefits.
Go buy and work some place else.
Sounds pretty simple to me.

Disclosure: I'm an atheist.
 
2013-11-26 03:21:25 PM

Transubstantive: The whole "corporations are people" thing was a legal fiction used purely as an analogy for certain legal doctrines.  The fact that the Supreme Court of the United States decided to turn this into a literal statement is beyond stupid, especially considering they all went to top-tier law schools.  It is, without a doubt, the worst SCOTUS decision in the 21st century.


Yeah, I still can't quite get my head around the fact they did that. It makes me wonder if it is the beginning of the slippery slope to a society like Cloud Atlas' Nea So Copros.

This is also one reason why we need a single-payer. Health insurance should not be tied to employment.
 
2013-11-26 03:21:40 PM

Tax Boy: Transubstantive: The whole "corporations are people" thing was a legal fiction used purely as an analogy for certain legal doctrines.  The fact that the Supreme Court of the United States decided to turn this into a literal statement is beyond stupid, especially considering they all went to top-tier law schools.  It is, without a doubt, the worst SCOTUS decision in the 21st century.

[newsbusters.org image 400x300]

demands a recount

Citizens United

will and already has had far more wide-reaching implications for our nation than Bush v. Gore.
 
2013-11-26 03:21:42 PM
What if your religion forbids paying for insurance of any kind for employees? We can dance around this issue all we want because har-har, put an aspirin between your legs, tramp, but it's indicative of a larger, structural deficiency that undermines the entire system.
 
2013-11-26 03:21:49 PM

dj_bigbird: swaniefrmreddeer: This won't end well if the SCOTUS allows the companies to deny contraception. The JW plan will not include blood transfusions, the christian scientists plan will include only prayer.

They're not "denying contraception" - the employer would simply not have to pay for it. The employees would still be free to go out into the real world and pay for it on their own.


They're not telling their employees that they can't have a blood transfusion to save their life, the JW employer just won't pay for it.

/slippery slope.
 
2013-11-26 03:22:39 PM

DamnYankees: That's an interesting comparison - the idea of passing a law saying that every restaurant *must* serve beer, for example. I'm trying to imagine a situation where that could be unconstitutional, but I'm not seeing it. It would be really horrible public policy, but absent a showing of discriminatory intent against Mormons, I think it should stand as a law.


See, I think that it should stand more on whether the corporate entity itself, and not the people who own it, has a religious identity. If Hebrew National is bought by Bain Capital, I still think it can claim to be a Jewish company, because of its brand identity. Whereas Chik-Fil-A, while owned by a religious Christian, has nothing to do with religion.

I think that if it can be shown that the law harms the business because of the business's religious affiliation, then either the law is unconstitutional or the particular business should be exempt. But for the Hobby Lobby, that's not even close to the case.
 
2013-11-26 03:23:15 PM
As they should.
 
2013-11-26 03:23:45 PM

drumhellar: Has anybody noticed that Hobby Lobby isn't a corporation?

It is a privately-owed company, which significantly changes the issue.

The owners are still coonts, but still - it's unrelated from corporate personhood.


You are confusing a public corporation with a private corporation - both are corporations.  The only forms of businesses are sole proprietorships, partnerships, and corporations.  Nearly every business is a corporation because it limits personal liability of the owners.
 
2013-11-26 03:24:47 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.



Don't hurt yourself.

I promise that the Affordable Care Act does not require people to take contraceptives if they don't want them.

You can also not legally be compelled to get "gay married" if you are currently married to a woman...even if you think about dicks a lot.
 
2013-11-26 03:26:38 PM

DamnYankees: BravadoGT: The issue is whether or not the government can compel employers--any employers--to pay to fund services they find religiously objectionable and a condition of doing business in this country (i.e. "whether profit-making corporations can assert religious beliefs under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act or the First Amendment provision guaranteeing Americans the right to believe and worship as they choose."

What is an "employer" though? That's a huge issue here. The "employer" in the context of a corporation is the corporation, not the shareholders. On what legal basis do you attribute beliefs of shareholders to beliefs of the company? You might have Company X wholly-owned by a Catholic priest. In that case, you might want to conflate the employer's beliefs with that of the shareholder. But why should that be permitted in the case of religious beliefs, but not, say, debt? If Company X owes me money but doesn't have it, I don't get to go after the Catholic priest - we don't break the corporate veil. Why should we do so here?


Because the Federal government has imposed on itself a very tough standard with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act   That makes it a different animal that what incorporations law would normally encompass.  Constitutional issues always trump--even without the boost from the RFRA.  SCOTUS isn't going to say "sorry, owners of hobby lobby.  If you were a sole proprietorship or maybe a partnership you would have religious rights, but since you decided to incorporate--you have forfeited these rights."   It would make no sense for a case this case to hinge on that detail.
 
2013-11-26 03:26:50 PM

nmrsnr: See, I think that it should stand more on whether the corporate entity itself, and not the people who own it, has a religious identity.


This is true in general, but anti-discrimination lawsuits can generally be won if you can show that a law discriminates against you indirectly but was put in place as a result of discriminatory intent. And to me that's fair. It's not specific to the corporate scenario, though.
 
2013-11-26 03:26:56 PM
I wouldn't want to be working for Ikea when they start looking around for the sacrifices to Thor.
 
2013-11-26 03:27:06 PM
The major problem is the stupid law requiring businesses to offer health insurance as a benefit. If the government wants people to have health insurance it should provide a mechanism (the ACA if it worked).

Why should your employer be forced to pay for your insurance? Other than the minimum wage they should just butt out and I'm not sure about the min wage.

Right now the employer mandate is killing low income workers whose jobs are being cut to < 30 hourse. And yes it's happening, I know of at least 3 cases.

/ 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
/// Slashies come in threes
 
2013-11-26 03:27:17 PM

Mike_LowELL: R.A.Danny: You just hurt my brain, Mike_LoweLL.

That is the weakness inside of you leaving.  Embrace conservatism.  Embrace the chalice of freedom.  Drink from the chalice.  Rise.


I followed your directions but my penis keeps getting stuck in the window.
 
2013-11-26 03:28:07 PM
Here's the thing - Whether the corporation can have a religion (whatever that means) should be irrelevant to the holding of the court.  We already have long precedent that states that a law of general applicability trumps the free exercise clause.  This is why you cannot "opt out" of drug laws by declaring yourself a Rastafarian.

Hobby Lobby or whomever else can declare themselves to be Christian/Buddhist/Taoist/Whatever, unless they can show that the ACA provisions were specifically written with the intent to fark with their religious beliefs rather than to enact a general policy goal, they will still lose.


Thus, Chill Winston.
 
2013-11-26 03:28:54 PM

BravadoGT: Because the Federal government has imposed on itself a very tough standard with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act   That makes it a different animal that what incorporations law would normally encompass.  Constitutional issues always trump--even without the boost from the RFRA.  SCOTUS isn't going to say "sorry, owners of hobby lobby.  If you were a sole proprietorship or maybe a partnership you would have religious rights, but since you decided to incorporate--you have forfeited these rights."   It would make no sense for a case this case to hinge on that detail.


I'm not seeing how the RFRA makes any different here. The issue isn't the standard of scrutiny that's applied, the issue is to who the law actually applies. Are you willing to make the claim that any law which affects the way corporations act must be tested under the RFRA by hypothetically imagining if that law would be constitutional had it been directed directly at the shareholders and not at the corporation?
 
2013-11-26 03:29:11 PM
Answer should just be no.
 
2013-11-26 03:29:46 PM

drumhellar: Has anybody noticed that Hobby Lobby isn't a corporation?
It is a privately-owed company, which significantly changes the issue.
The owners are still coonts, but still - it's unrelated from corporate personhood.


No, nobody has noticed that.  Because it's not true.  It's a corporation.  It's not a publicly-traded corporation, but it's a corporation nonetheless (apparently a closely-held corporation, like the vast majority of corporations in America).  From their website:

Lobby Stores, Inc., located in Oklahoma City, OK, started as an extension of Greco Products, a miniature picture frames company founded in a garage by David Green in 1970. Hobby Lobby officially began operation on August 3, 1972 with a mere 300 square feet of retail space, and has been growing ever since.

Today, Hobby Lobby is considered a leader in the arts and crafts industry. We have 578 stores across the nation that average 55,000 square feet and offer more than 67,000 crafting and home decor products. Hobby Lobby is listed as a major private corporation in Forbes and Fortunes list of America's largest private companies, and our company carries no long-term debt.
 
2013-11-26 03:29:47 PM
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.
 
2013-11-26 03:30:17 PM
fark hobby lobby.
That said if you pay for contraception you keep your wage slave employees at work and not having babies. Also it costs you less in taxes in the long run having less little punks running around doing stupid shiat.
Really it's the most real Republican thing to do.

/farking idiots.
 
2013-11-26 03:30:27 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



What strip club were you at?
 
2013-11-26 03:30:34 PM

Kiriyama9000: If you don't like it, don't work there and don't take their benefits.
Go buy and work some place else.
Sounds pretty simple to me.

Disclosure: I'm an atheist.


Yep.
 
2013-11-26 03:31:12 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: What religion is The Hobby Lobby, anyway?


And will the Hobby Lobby lobby congress?
 
2013-11-26 03:31:40 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.


img.fark.net
 
2013-11-26 03:31:44 PM
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?
 
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.
 
2013-11-26 03:50:52 PM
The government has the authority to say you can't pay your US employees with Pesos, Yen, Euros or credit at the company store... so they should be able to say which health benefits are OK.
 
2013-11-26 03:51:24 PM
It's not the corporation's money.
It's the employee's money
it's their deferred compensation
just because you pay the insurance company directly doesn't mean you can tell the insurance company what your employee can and cannot purchase with the plan.
they're paying for it not you.
 
2013-11-26 03:51:30 PM

DamnYankees: nmrsnr: I do not have a good feeling about this.

I think there is something to be said for saying that laws that harm a business that is inextricably linked to religion are problematic, like mandating a kosher bakery be open on Saturdays, or requiring a Mormon restaurant to serve alcohol or caffeine, but for a regular business that won't have its business operations affected by regulations, I don't think they have any standing, since the corporation is not the person, and the corporation has no inherent religion if it is a secular business.

That's an interesting comparison - the idea of passing a law saying that every restaurant *must* serve beer, for example. I'm trying to imagine a situation where that could be unconstitutional, but I'm not seeing it. It would be really horrible public policy, but absent a showing of discriminatory intent against Mormons, I think it should stand as a law.


I don't think you understand the concept of, of free exercise thereof.
 
2013-11-26 03:52:17 PM

Cyberluddite: 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?


She wasn't. Just trying to feed the three kids. She worked in a hospice by day.

And it's an amazing fact that a lot of them 'are' college students or are going to beauty school. I'll bet most of them never graduate but it is a way of paying for college.

I've tutored 3 of them in math.

Been to one graduation.

And I'm not like all the other customers. I'm a cheapskate.
 
2013-11-26 03:52:21 PM

Eponymous: 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.


Logic dictates that it's the verbs that determine whether an action is an offense, not the noun.
 
2013-11-26 03:52:49 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.

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.


I think you're confusing "make available" with "provide".

I get insurance through my company, and they're legally required to choose a plan that I pay a LOT of money to get.

They don't "provide" me with my insurance.
 
2013-11-26 03:53:02 PM

Headso: says the guy saying companies have human feelings.


Show your work.

Serious Post on Serious Thread: 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. ?


Exactly. (the middle two aren't the same as the first and last)
 
2013-11-26 03:53:17 PM

Eponymous: I don't think you understand the concept of, of free exercise thereof.


What am I missing?
 
2013-11-26 03:53:36 PM

Transubstantive: Tax Boy: Transubstantive: The whole "corporations are people" thing was a legal fiction used purely as an analogy for certain legal doctrines.  The fact that the Supreme Court of the United States decided to turn this into a literal statement is beyond stupid, especially considering they all went to top-tier law schools.  It is, without a doubt, the worst SCOTUS decision in the 21st century.

[newsbusters.org image 400x300]

demands a recount

Citizens United will and already has had far more wide-reaching implications for our nation than Bush v. Gore.


Yeah, but Bush v. Gore gave us Bush, who gave us Roberts and Alito, who helped give us Citizens United.

Gore might have given us a couple of crappy justices, but not THAT crappy.
 
2013-11-26 03:53:39 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.


And you seem to be arguing that employer-provided healthcare is a bad idea. I agree.

It's easy for someone who is comfortable to claim that you just don't have to work somewhere. But, it isn't always an easy decision. So, we end up with people working for assholes like HL, because kids come before principles. Every damn time.

It isn't the upper middle class that this type of crap affects, it is those without alternatives.
 
2013-11-26 03:53:49 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?


Who knows?  That type of corporation would probably have a tough time laying out their case.  Hobby Lobby is owned by one guy and his family; their religious beliefs have always been a large part of the company (e.g. closing on Sundays, mission statements, etc.)  Not as difficult for them to establish.  Again, it's not whether or not a corporation has a religion--it's whether the plaintiff's can show that their religious freedoms have been infringed by the government.
 
2013-11-26 03:53:53 PM

drumhellar: Has anybody noticed that Hobby Lobby isn't a corporation?

It is a privately-owed company, which significantly changes the issue.

The owners are still coonts, but still - it's unrelated from corporate personhood.


Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. is very much a corporation.  It might be closely held and not publicly traded, but it has all the protections and obligations that go with the corporate form, and so is a legal entity distinct from his owners, officers, and employees.  Unless they want to pierce the corporate veil and make themselves personally liable for the corporation's debts and obligations.
 
2013-11-26 03:54:23 PM

Donnchadha: At this point, we've established that corporations are people and people have the right to free expression of religion, therefore transitive property.

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? At most, one could only provide evidence that the people who make up the corporation are members, but not the corporation itself -- which is the whole premise behind corporate personhood.


Yeah, Hobby Lobby hardly ever comes to church these days.
 
2013-11-26 03:54:41 PM

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: 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."


It is most certainly taking health decisions away from the people who should be making them. Arguing about whether you'll pay is mere quibbling.

Raising the religious rights of a company over an individual will never get past any SCOTUS - they'll shoot them down.
 
2013-11-26 03:55:43 PM
Well, the business will not be making health decisions for their employees. employees can take as much birth control as they like. You can walk around with a bag of RU-486 and pop 'em like candy all day long.

Th court will decide whether the business has to pay for it via insurance. But that's not as hyperbolic so good job subby.
 
2013-11-26 03:55:50 PM

BravadoGT: Who knows?  That type of corporation would probably have a tough time laying out their case.  Hobby Lobby is owned by one guy and his family; their religious beliefs have always been a large part of the company (e.g. closing on Sundays, mission statements, etc.)  Not as difficult for them to establish.  Again, it's not whether or not a corporation has a religion--it's whether the plaintiff's can show that their religious freedoms have been infringed by the government.


Your last sentence undermines the rest of your post. You seem to be saying that's what's relevant isn't the religious affiliation of the corporation, but whether the law impacts the religious beliefs of a shareholder. No?
 
2013-11-26 03:55:56 PM

Kiriyama9000: If you don't like it, don't work there and don't take their benefits.
Go buy and work some place else.
Sounds pretty simple to me.

Disclosure: I'm an atheist.


That will work as long as there are other places to go buy and work.

Presumably non-athiest companies will be able to say no health care for atheists as it is against our religious beliefs.
 
2013-11-26 03:55:59 PM

Transubstantive: The whole "corporations are people" thing was a legal fiction used purely as an analogy for certain legal doctrines.  The fact that the Supreme Court of the United States decided to turn this into a literal statement is beyond stupid, especially considering they all went to top-tier law schools.  It is, without a doubt, the worst SCOTUS decision in the 21st century.


Don't get ahead of yourself.  We have another 87 years to try to top it.
 
2013-11-26 03:56:53 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Headso: says the guy saying companies have human feelings.

Show your work.



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


I don't think the hobby lobby corp finds anything "objectionable" because being offended is a human emotion.
 
2013-11-26 03:57:03 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Headso: says the guy saying companies have human feelings.

Show your work.

Serious Post on Serious Thread: 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. ?

Exactly. (the middle two aren't the same as the first and last)


Show your work.
 
2013-11-26 03:59:19 PM

PunGent: 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.


Oh fantastic. Next are they going to levy a tax if I don't produce viable offspring? Call it empty incubator tax or something patriotic like Future American Tax. Taxed every year I dont produce offspring? (No don't tell them that, don't give them any ideas)

I think President Obama said it really well in one of his debates last round. Republicans have 1950's esq social policy. If we lived in Eratosthenes time, the Republicans would be the one clinging to the earth is flat idea.

We keep getting closer and closer to Orwellian society. It was meant as a warning, not a roadmap.
 
2013-11-26 04:01:00 PM

OgreMagi: 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.


Wasn't there something in one of the immigration reform bills where the people we used to call 'illegals' would not count towards your 50 limit? Is that still there?

If so I'd just hire all ex-illegals and dump my current employees where it was possible.

You get what you incentivize.
 
2013-11-26 04:01:02 PM

Ghengis_Socrates: 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?


It's kinda like Homsar.

media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com
 
2013-11-26 04:03:25 PM

DamnYankees: BravadoGT: Because the Federal government has imposed on itself a very tough standard with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act   That makes it a different animal that what incorporations law would normally encompass.  Constitutional issues always trump--even without the boost from the RFRA.  SCOTUS isn't going to say "sorry, owners of hobby lobby.  If you were a sole proprietorship or maybe a partnership you would have religious rights, but since you decided to incorporate--you have forfeited these rights."   It would make no sense for a case this case to hinge on that detail.

I'm not seeing how the RFRA makes any different here. The issue isn't the standard of scrutiny that's applied, the issue is to who the law actually applies. Are you willing to make the claim that any law which affects the way corporations act must be tested under the RFRA by hypothetically imagining if that law would be constitutional had it been directed directly at the shareholders and not at the corporation?


In as much as it's the same standard as other civil law cases--yes.  You file a lawsuit for anything, and a court will review it.  You can allege that your neighbor is from mars and ate all your crabgrass and now owes you $3300 in gold bars, and a court will review the case for merit before kicking you to the curb.  Every time.  Why should this be different?  It doesn't mean specious will get a pass and shape policy.  Moreover--since the government publicly and voluntarily accepted a high burden here--they certainly seemed willing to take on the responsibility,  Isn't the best course of action to let their power to be checked?
 
2013-11-26 04:03:31 PM
I wonder if they employed any hobbyist lobbyist to get their case going with the congress.

/just wanted to use the phrase hobbyist lobbyist, that's all
 
2013-11-26 04:03:49 PM
Employer:  Well here is our food benefit plan, we will cover half of your grocery bills from store X.  We chose this store as our food provider for many reasons, but one of the main reasons is because they don't sell mustard.  I farking hate mustard, and I think no one should be subjected to it.

Employee:  But you are denying my access to mustard you condiment Nazi.

Employer:  No, you are free to buy your own mustard wherever you like.  I'm just not going to have money that I am spending for your food needs going for any god damned mustard.  In fact, save the $10/month you are spending on birth control and you can have a smorgasbord of mustard for all I care.  Anybody with that much mustard on their breath won't be getting laid anyway.
 
2013-11-26 04:04:10 PM

BravadoGT: Not as difficult for them to establish.


Does the corporation attend the same church? Does it tithe? Was it baptized by a pastor?  Will it be buried in hallowed ground?

How do you establish what religion it is unless it follows the rituals and precepts of a religion?

BravadoGT: it's whether the plaintiff's can show that their religious freedoms have been infringed by the government.


If the corporation does not have a religion itself,  and the corporation is the entity that provides the insurance benefits, how can the religious freedoms of a third party be infringed?
 
2013-11-26 04:04:58 PM
gilgigamesh:

For some reason this is controversial. Boner pills, naturally, still 100% okey doke.

ED drugs are way less frequently covered by insurance plans than birh control is.
 
2013-11-26 04:05:33 PM

CujoQuarrel: Cyberluddite: 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?

She wasn't. Just trying to feed the three kids. She worked in a hospice by day.

And it's an amazing fact that a lot of them 'are' college students or are going to beauty school. I'll bet most of them never graduate but it is a way of paying for college.

I've tutored 3 of them in math.

Been to one graduation.

And I'm not like all the other customers. I'm a cheapskate.


This is the creepiest thing I'm gonna read today, and I hang out in TFD.
 
2013-11-26 04:07:22 PM
The easy way to resolve this is to forbid companies from providing health insurance for employees.  Allow everyone to find and fund their own insurance policy that covers what they want to be covered.  A gay man hardly needs to pay for contraception, nor is he terribly interested in paying for mammograms.  A single woman probably isn't too interested in whether her policy covers prostate exams.  Just like groceries, cars, housing, clothing - let each consumer buy what he needs and wants.
 
2013-11-26 04:08:54 PM

BravadoGT: In as much as it's the same standard as other civil law cases--yes.  You file a lawsuit for anything, and a court will review it.  You can allege that your neighbor is from mars and ate all your crabgrass and now owes you $3300 in gold bars, and a court will review the case for merit before kicking you to the curb.  Every time.  Why should this be different?  It doesn't mean specious will get a pass and shape policy.  Moreover--since the government publicly and voluntarily accepted a high burden here--they certainly seemed willing to take on the responsibility,  Isn't the best course of action to let their power to be checked?


I agree with this in general, but I'm unclear on what the nature claim here is. We seem to be vacillating between 2 different claims, and I haven't been sure what it is you're thinking about:

1) A claim on behalf of the corporation, claiming the the corporation itself has some religious beliefs which are being violated.

2) A claim on behalf of a shareholder of a corporation, claiming that by imposing certain laws on the corporation, the religious rights of the shareholder are being violated.

Which is it? Because these are 2 distinct claims that need to be responded to differently.
 
2013-11-26 04:09:07 PM

BravadoGT: 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?



But that doesn't really answer my question.  A faith, whether new or old, has a prohibition against paying taxes (or some other current law, but taxes is the easiest one for people to understand).  Would a decision in favor of Hobby Lobby allow corporations owned by members of that faith to avoid taxes?  Because paying taxes would be a violation of their religious freedoms.
 
2013-11-26 04:09:48 PM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Cyberluddite: If they have more than a certain number of employees (50, is it?), then yes, they are required to offer health insurance to their full-time employees under the Affordable Care Act.

Nope, they could always pay a fine.


This.  Hobby Lobby isn't required to provide insurance under ACA, contraceptive-covering or not.  It's not criminal to not do so.  They just don't get the tax benefits of providing comprehensive insurance.

This should directly follow from John Robert's opinion that the individual mandate is effectively a tax and a  tax credit that most people get for being covered.  The employer mandate works exactly the same way.  However, the individual mandate does have a religious exemption.  Can a business?  Stay tuned.
 
2013-11-26 04:10:43 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.


I find myself in the minority in VRA, as I agree with both sides and come to a different conclusion than both sides (assuming I am well-informed, which I may not be, please enlighten me if the following is excessively silly).

Conservative side: these rules are picking on certain states and regions, that's unfair. Liberal side: you were doing unfair things in your elections, these corrections fixed those problems. My solution: why not apply these limitations everywhere? Isn't it mostly the right to screw with an election at the last minute? That is asking the people in power to twiddle with things to their own benefit. Elections don't need last minute twiddling, lock them down well in advance everywhere.

The Virginia gubernatorial election is an excellent example of why we should do this--Cuccinelli only won the republican nomination because his boosters changed the primary scheme at the last second to a caucus scheme. We all suffered for that, which allowed the dems to put up a crap candidate too.
 
2013-11-26 04:10:53 PM

Mr. Right: The easy way to resolve this is to forbid companies from providing health insurance for employees.  Allow everyone to find and fund their own insurance policy that covers what they want to be covered.  A gay man hardly needs to pay for contraception, nor is he terribly interested in paying for mammograms.  A single woman probably isn't too interested in whether her policy covers prostate exams.  Just like groceries, cars, housing, clothing - let each consumer buy what he needs and wants.


The easy way to resolve it is for hobby lobby to follow the law. The rest of your post where you don't understand risk pools has nothing to do with the case.
 
2013-11-26 04:12:10 PM

Qellaqan: Conservative side: these rules are picking on certain states and regions, that's unfair. Liberal side: you were doing unfair things in your elections, these corrections fixed those problems. My solution: why not apply these limitations everywhere? Isn't it mostly the right to screw with an election at the last minute? That is asking the people in power to twiddle with things to their own benefit. Elections don't need last minute twiddling, lock them down well in advance everywhere.


I don't disagree with you as a matter of policy. But as a matter of judge-ship and acting in the capacity as a judge and not a legislator, the VRA decision was a true abomination.
 
2013-11-26 04:12:11 PM

edmo: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: 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."

It is most certainly taking health decisions away from the people who should be making them. Arguing about whether you'll pay is mere quibbling.

Raising the religious rights of a company over an individual will never get past any SCOTUS - they'll shoot them down.


My wife was on birth control pills to help regulate her hormones. Without them her moods were really messed up. An employer restricting her would indeed have a very real impact on her mental health.
 
2013-11-26 04:12:11 PM

stewbert: And you seem to be arguing that employer-provided healthcare is a bad idea


How in God's name did you make that conclusion? It couldn't have been from

Dancin_In_Anson: While I think the owners of HL are horribly misguided and WRONG

so it had to come from somewhere else. Please elaborate.

Headso: I don't think the hobby lobby corp finds anything "objectionable" because being offended is a human emotion.


You missed one key word. Go back and see if you can find it.

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Show your work


Wages and breaks are benefits and or compensation. Chained doors and safe working environments are a matter of public safety. Two entirely different animals.
 
2013-11-26 04:12:44 PM
Considering ACA contains an advisory board that allows government officials to decide the efficiacy of medical procedures...

Good thing Hobby Lobby has a slave labor force they force into Christianity.
 
2013-11-26 04:14:03 PM
It boggles my mind that we have to ask this question.

I hope I'm not disappointed in my country again.

/But I probably will be.
 
2013-11-26 04:14:29 PM

what_now: CujoQuarrel: Cyberluddite: 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?

She wasn't. Just trying to feed the three kids. She worked in a hospice by day.

And it's an amazing fact that a lot of them 'are' college students or are going to beauty school. I'll bet most of them never graduate but it is a way of paying for college.

I've tutored 3 of them in math.

Been to one graduation.

And I'm not like all the other customers. I'm a cheapskate.

This is the creepiest thing I'm gonna read today, and I hang out in TFD.


Why 'creepy'? They're just people trying to get by the best they can.
You think they are sub-human or something?
 
2013-11-26 04:15:22 PM

Lawnchair: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Cyberluddite: If they have more than a certain number of employees (50, is it?), then yes, they are required to offer health insurance to their full-time employees under the Affordable Care Act.

Nope, they could always pay a fine.

This.  Hobby Lobby isn't required to provide insurance under ACA, contraceptive-covering or not.  It's not criminal to not do so.  They just don't get the tax benefits of providing comprehensive insurance.

This should directly follow from John Robert's opinion that the individual mandate is effectively a tax and a  tax credit that most people get for being covered.  The employer mandate works exactly the same way.  However, the individual mandate does have a religious exemption.  Can a business?  Stay tuned.


It's not just tax benefits of providing health insurance but also a $3,000 penalty.

Interesting to see whether the same tax logic applies as it does to the individual mandate, as you suggest. Get rid of the penalty and this isn't an issue, and employees can simply go on an exchange to buy insurance, perhaps with a credit provided by their employer in lieu of providing insurance.
 
2013-11-26 04:15:31 PM

Headso: The easy way to resolve it is for hobby lobby to follow the law


Says every tyrant, ever.

His solution is spot on, by the way. Having a middleman, corporations you work for, be the purchaser of your insurance is perfectly retarded and a major cause of all this mess.

Remove the tax benefit from companies to purchase health care, and transfer that benefit to the actual consumers. Everyone wins.

But why am I saying this to you? You surely believe 80 year old women should have birth control mandated in their health insurance policy.
 
2013-11-26 04:15:40 PM
as someone with endometriosis, the fact that this is an issue infuriates me.
 
2013-11-26 04:15:46 PM
Perhaps SCOTUS should have lunch brought in from Chick-Fil-A
 
2013-11-26 04:16:36 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.


When did Hobby Lobby start do ing bedroom checks on their employees? They just don't want to pay for it. They aren't banning contraceptions for their employees.

Your logical conclusion is idiotic.
 
2013-11-26 04:16:37 PM

what_now: This is the creepiest thing I'm gonna read today, and I hang out in TFD.


I'm slipping.
I've lost it.
 
2013-11-26 04:17:38 PM

The Irresponsible Captain: It boggles my mind that we have to ask this question.

I hope I'm not disappointed in my country again.

/But I probably will be.


It boggles the mind that we are forcing employers to pay for insurance in the first place.

Why not leave it to individuals to go on these great exchanges and purchase their own insurance? Why fragment the market with employer mandates? It's completely illogical.
 
2013-11-26 04:18:23 PM
Another important note is that a recent decision by the Obama administration is that mental health care must be covered.


Given that at least one "religion", namely Scientology, is opposed to most psychiatric services, this would mean that Scientology owned corporations, even when not staffed by Scientologists, could refuse to cover mental health care.
 
2013-11-26 04:19:53 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Well, the business will not be making health decisions for their employees. employees can take as much birth control cancer drugs as they like. You can walk around with a bag of RU-486 immunosuppresors and pop 'em like candy all day long.The court will decide whether the business has to pay for it via insurance



What is the difference between your version and mine, morally?
 
2013-11-26 04:20:02 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Headso: I don't think the hobby lobby corp finds anything "objectionable" because being offended is a human emotion.

You missed one key word. Go back and see if you can find it.


yep my bad, you think the owners of hobby lobby are buying their employees insurance with their own personal money not that the hobby lobby has emotions.
 
2013-11-26 04:21:33 PM

DamnYankees: BravadoGT: Who knows?  That type of corporation would probably have a tough time laying out their case.  Hobby Lobby is owned by one guy and his family; their religious beliefs have always been a large part of the company (e.g. closing on Sundays, mission statements, etc.)  Not as difficult for them to establish.  Again, it's not whether or not a corporation has a religion--it's whether the plaintiff's can show that their religious freedoms have been infringed by the government.

Your last sentence undermines the rest of your post. You seem to be saying that's what's relevant isn't the religious affiliation of the corporation, but whether the law impacts the religious beliefs of a shareholder. No?


No--I'm saying SCOTUS isn't bogging themselves down with the business structure of the employer.  They are only deciding whether a for-profit employer (any for-profit employer) can object to Obamacare under the RFRA and the 1st amendment.  There's already precedence for corporations suing under the RFRA (i.e. non-profits)
 
2013-11-26 04:21:52 PM

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: DECI


Took long enough for someone to point this out.
 
2013-11-26 04:22:30 PM

Sweaty Dynamite: Employer:  Well here is our food benefit plan, we will cover half of your grocery bills from store X.  We chose this store as our food provider for many reasons, but one of the main reasons is because they don't sell mustard.  I farking hate mustard, and I think no one should be subjected to it.

Employee:  But you are denying my access to mustard you condiment Nazi.

Employer:  No, you are free to buy your own mustard wherever you like.  I'm just not going to have money that I am spending for your food needs going for any god damned mustard.  In fact, save the $10/month you are spending on birth control and you can have a smorgasbord of mustard for all I care.  Anybody with that much mustard on their breath won't be getting laid anyway.


Close ...

Government: Employers must provide this (fictional) food service.

Employer: Ok ... but my invisible friend says mustard is bad so I will deny that part of the coverage even though the rules are that I provide coverage.

Hopefully what the SCOTUS says: Fark you ... if your invisible friend tells you not to eat mustard then you can choose not to for yourself. You don't get to choose for anyone else. Comply with the same rules as everyone else. Your belief in invisible friends does make you special but not in a good way.
 
2013-11-26 04:23:10 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: stewbert: And you seem to be arguing that employer-provided healthcare is a bad idea

How in God's name did you make that conclusion? It couldn't have been from Dancin_In_Anson: While I think the owners of HL are horribly misguided and WRONG so it had to come from somewhere else. Please elaborate.

Headso: I don't think the hobby lobby corp finds anything "objectionable" because being offended is a human emotion.

You missed one key word. Go back and see if you can find it.

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Show your work

Wages and breaks are benefits and or compensation. Chained doors and safe working environments are a matter of public safety. Two entirely different animals.


Paying a living wage and not working someone to death aren't purvue of social policy. But letting a person choose to work for higher wages without the dastardly oppression of not allowing asbestos removers to work without masks or seamstresses to work without fire exits is?

You don't sound very bootstrappy.
 
2013-11-26 04:24:55 PM

Farking Canuck: Your belief in invisible friends does make you special but not in a good way.


Actually, religion is highly protected. Tough shiat for you, authoritarian canuck.
 
2013-11-26 04:25:03 PM

dj_bigbird: swaniefrmreddeer: This won't end well if the SCOTUS allows the companies to deny contraception. The JW plan will not include blood transfusions, the christian scientists plan will include only prayer.

They're not "denying contraception" - the employer would simply not have to pay for it. The employees would still be free to go out into the real world and pay for it on their own.


They're refusing to pay their employees what they're legally required to because they don't like what the employees are going to do with the money (get health care they don't approve of).  AT BEST it's theft.
 
2013-11-26 04:25:14 PM

Shryke: Having a middleman, corporations you work for, be the purchaser of your insurance is perfectly retarded and a major cause of all this mess.


If the subsidies were being paid for by the poor and middle class instead of the wealthy none of the people who tell you what to think would have a problem with the ACA, "all this mess" is an ad campaign to move an agenda.
 
2013-11-26 04:25:27 PM
Corporations do not have a right to exist.  There are conditions that must be met before a corporation may be formed and there are conditions that must be met to maintain the corporate charter.  A corporation that does not operate in the public interest may be dissolved.  Just make compliance with Obamacare a condition for incorporation and this question is answered.
 
2013-11-26 04:26:17 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Why not leave it to individuals to go on these great exchanges and purchase their own insurance? Why fragment the market with employer mandates?



The individual plans would cost more than the negotiated group rates.
 
2013-11-26 04:26:18 PM

Shryke: Farking Canuck: Your belief in invisible friends does make you special but not in a good way.

Actually, religion is highly protected. Tough shiat for you, authoritarian canuck.


I did not say that religion was not protected. I said that adults with invisible friends are "special".
 
2013-11-26 04:26:38 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Headso: says the guy saying companies have human feelings.

Show your work.

Serious Post on Serious Thread: 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. ?

Exactly. (the middle two aren't the same as the first and last)


well what exactly is their standing for filing this suit?
how does it harm them other than their feelings?
why does it matter to them if their employees' insurance covers contraceptives?
it's not them purchasing them. the employees are.
that money they give the insurance company is actually their employee's deferred compensation.
The employees are actually purchasing the plan.
All the company is doing is getting them a discount.
 
2013-11-26 04:26:54 PM

Headso: Mr. Right: The easy way to resolve this is to forbid companies from providing health insurance for employees.  Allow everyone to find and fund their own insurance policy that covers what they want to be covered.  A gay man hardly needs to pay for contraception, nor is he terribly interested in paying for mammograms.  A single woman probably isn't too interested in whether her policy covers prostate exams.  Just like groceries, cars, housing, clothing - let each consumer buy what he needs and wants.

The easy way to resolve it is for hobby lobby to follow the law. The rest of your post where you don't understand risk pools has nothing to do with the case.


I understand risk pools.  What you don't understand is that first dollar insurance policies are exactly the wrong approach to health care funding.  ACA took a system that was flawed and, in spite of the fact that the majority of the population got along with it and had coverage, pushed it as far as possible in the wrong direction.  Employers should be prohibited from offering health insurance to their employees; individuals should be encouraged (if not mandated) to set up HSAs when they are young and maintain them and that should be the norm for health insurance.  At that point, you can take your risk pools and place them where a colonoscopy would be required to find them.

It wouldn't work for everybody but guess what!  The old system didn't work for everybody and ACA looks like it's going to make it worse for more people and work for fewer people.
 
2013-11-26 04:27:34 PM
Still, even if a corporation has a religion, do they have the right to exert religious influence on others (employees)? I would think that is a non-starter.
 
2013-11-26 04:27:47 PM
If they allow this then you can call anything a religious belief. Don want to pay taxes? Against my religion. Don't want to serve black people just claim its against your religion. This precedent will allow anyone to ignore any law they please if they just claim a religious belief
 
2013-11-26 04:27:59 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: stewbert: And you seem to be arguing that employer-provided healthcare is a bad idea

How in God's name did you make that conclusion? It couldn't have been from Dancin_In_Anson: While I think the owners of HL are horribly misguided and WRONG so it had to come from somewhere else. Please elaborate.

Headso: I don't think the hobby lobby corp finds anything "objectionable" because being offended is a human emotion.

You missed one key word. Go back and see if you can find it.

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Show your work

Wages and breaks are benefits and or compensation. Chained doors and safe working environments are a matter of public safety. Two entirely different animals.


So a living wage and not being worked to death are not part of the public interest. But not being able to choose to work for a higher wage without an asbestos mask or a fire exit is not?

Sounds pretty arbitray & non bootstrappy to me.
 
2013-11-26 04:28:08 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: The Irresponsible Captain: It boggles my mind that we have to ask this question.

I hope I'm not disappointed in my country again.

/But I probably will be.

It boggles the mind that we are forcing employers to pay for insurance in the first place.

Why not leave it to individuals to go on these great exchanges and purchase their own insurance? Why fragment the market with employer mandates? It's completely illogical.


Because it's a Republican idea...
healthcareforamericanow.org
 
2013-11-26 04:28:35 PM
Complete and total bullshyte. All the business must do is provide the insurance to meet the minimum coverage as mandated by law. It's up to the insurance companies what exactly gets covered, and by how much.
 
2013-11-26 04:28:43 PM

Headso: If the subsidies were being paid for by the poor and middle class instead of the wealthy none of the people who tell you what to think would have a problem with the ACA, "all this mess" is an ad campaign to move an agenda.


Let me get this straight: I would not have a problem with the ACA if the end users were actually paying for the services they used, based on what they used.

Yes, I have no problem with that. This is, of course, the opposite of what the ACA does.

That said, the "mess" I am referring to predates the ACA by several decades.
 
2013-11-26 04:30:35 PM

Farking Canuck: I did not say that religion was not protected.


Just that religious people were delusional and worse. Oh what a difference.
 
2013-11-26 04:31:14 PM

Coastalgrl: PunGent: 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.

Oh fantastic. Next are they going to levy a tax if I don't produce viable offspring? Call it empty incubator tax or something patriotic like Future American Tax. Taxed every year I dont produce offspring? (No don't tell them that, don't give them any ideas)

I think President Obama said it really well in one of his debates last round. Republicans have 1950's esq social policy. If we lived in Eratosthenes time, the Republicans would be the one clinging to the earth is flat idea.

We keep getting closer and closer to Orwellian society. It was meant as a warning, not a roadmap


Obama spies on his own people.

But grrrr republicans bad.
 
2013-11-26 04:31:24 PM

Mr. Right: Employers should be prohibited from offering health insurance to their employees; individuals should be encouraged (if not mandated) to set up HSAs when they are young and maintain them and that should be the norm for health insurance.  At that point, you can take your risk pools and place them where a colonoscopy would be required to find them.


Citizens should just have a certain level of coverage no HSA required then if you want additional or better coverage you can purchase it. What you advocate puts more of the burden on the middle class and poor.
 
2013-11-26 04:31:43 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: What religion is The Hobby Lobby, anyway?



The asshole kind
 
2013-11-26 04:32:49 PM

Mr. Right: The easy way to resolve this is to forbid companies from providing health insurance for employees.  Allow everyone to find and fund their own insurance policy that covers what they want to be covered. A gay man hardly needs to pay for contraception, nor is he terribly interested in paying for mammograms.  A single woman probably isn't too interested in whether her policy covers prostate exams.  Just like groceries, cars, housing, clothing - let each consumer buy what he needs and wants.


Can't happen under current law.  This is one of my biggest beefs against Obamacare (and Romneycare, since I live in Mass.)

The young and healthy can't buy cheap high-deductible catastrophic care policies.  Which is exactly the kind of insurance that makes sense for them.  Well, they CAN buy those policies...they just don't count as coverage.  So they still get fined.
 
2013-11-26 04:33:07 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.


+1 for the obviously dripping sarcasm.
 
2013-11-26 04:33:15 PM
I have no worries that John Roberts will be bribed/ blackmailed/ threatened into making the decision the Admin wants.
 
2013-11-26 04:33:30 PM

drumhellar: Has anybody noticed that Hobby Lobby isn't a corporation?

It is a privately-owed company, which significantly changes the issue.

The owners are still coonts, but still - it's unrelated from corporate personhood.


It is a corporation.  It says right on their website, Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.
 
2013-11-26 04:33:51 PM

Cubicle Jockey: Debeo Summa Credo: Why not leave it to individuals to go on these great exchanges and purchase their own insurance? Why fragment the market with employer mandates?


The individual plans would cost more than the negotiated group rates.


I can see why that would be pre-PPACA (selection bias... half of Americans couldn't enroll in an individual plan for any amount of money).  But, post-PPACA where the individual plans are community rated?   There's a tiny bit of difference in overhead (and I'd say the employer-based plans might have higher overhead really... the insurer has to keep track of each enrollee anyway).  There's still a little selection bias (really really sick people don't tend to have jobs).  But, overall, why should group rates be much lower any more?
 
2013-11-26 04:34:04 PM

DamnYankees: Qellaqan: Conservative side: these rules are picking on certain states and regions, that's unfair. Liberal side: you were doing unfair things in your elections, these corrections fixed those problems. My solution: why not apply these limitations everywhere? Isn't it mostly the right to screw with an election at the last minute? That is asking the people in power to twiddle with things to their own benefit. Elections don't need last minute twiddling, lock them down well in advance everywhere.

I don't disagree with you as a matter of policy. But as a matter of judge-ship and acting in the capacity as a judge and not a legislator, the VRA decision was a true abomination.


My read is that they said, 'yes, that is unfair', and made it 'fair'. However, they completely ignored the other part of the argument (to our great detriment, but legal arguments never seem to take that into account). That said, is the legislature barred from passing a VRA that applies to everyone (other than the breathtakingly pointless legislative body)?
 
2013-11-26 04:34:18 PM

Shryke: Headso: If the subsidies were being paid for by the poor and middle class instead of the wealthy none of the people who tell you what to think would have a problem with the ACA, "all this mess" is an ad campaign to move an agenda.

Let me get this straight: I would not have a problem with the ACA if the end users were actually paying for the services they used, based on what they used.

Yes, I have no problem with that. This is, of course, the opposite of what the ACA does.


yes I know, the ACA gives poor people coverage with the medicare expansion and helps the lower middle and middle class with subsidies, I know that is a problem for conservatives.
 
2013-11-26 04:34:44 PM

PunGent: The young and healthy can't buy cheap high-deductible catastrophic care policies. Which is exactly the kind of insurance that makes sense for them. Well, they CAN buy those policies...they just don't count as coverage. So they still get fined.


Welcome to leftistism. Redistribution to assuage guilt.
 
2013-11-26 04:36:40 PM

rumpelstiltskin: There are two things you learn right fast about corporations: first, they want you to get a wife so you have some coont nagging you to work harder to get promotions. And second, they want you to have kids, so you feel tied down. Workplaces frowning on contraception isn't about being pro-life. It's about being pro-slavery, and you're the slave.

You would fit in very well in DeKalb County, Georgia, especially if you're called for jury duty.

 
2013-11-26 04:36:42 PM

PunGent: Mr. Right: The easy way to resolve this is to forbid companies from providing health insurance for employees.  Allow everyone to find and fund their own insurance policy that covers what they want to be covered. A gay man hardly needs to pay for contraception, nor is he terribly interested in paying for mammograms.  A single woman probably isn't too interested in whether her policy covers prostate exams.  Just like groceries, cars, housing, clothing - let each consumer buy what he needs and wants.

Can't happen under current law.  This is one of my biggest beefs against Obamacare (and Romneycare, since I live in Mass.)

The young and healthy can't buy cheap high-deductible catastrophic care policies.  Which is exactly the kind of insurance that makes sense for them.  Well, they CAN buy those policies...they just don't count as coverage.  So they still get fined.


you couldn't buy those scam insurances you talk about even before Romneycare, MA has tough regs on all insurance companies that's why many of the big auto insurance companies are not in MA.
 
2013-11-26 04:36:47 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?


What church does it go to on Sundays?
 
2013-11-26 04:37:17 PM

Headso: yes I know, the ACA gives poor people coverage with the medicare expansion and helps the lower middle and middle class with subsidies, I know that is a problem for conservatives.


Anything that can't be paid for is a problem for everyone. The best part about this, at least from my side of the coin, is the ass-raping the young are going to get is near-instant, unlike the Great Society initiatives that slowly but surely stole their money.
 
2013-11-26 04:38:17 PM

Cubicle Jockey: Debeo Summa Credo: Well, the business will not be making health decisions for their employees. employees can take as much birth control cancer drugs as they like. You can walk around with a bag of RU-486 immunosuppresors and pop 'em like candy all day long.The court will decide whether the business has to pay for it via insurance


What is the difference between your version and mine, morally?


To me, nothing.
IMO you should be able to offer coverage for everything but immunosuppressors and cancer drugs if you want, it's your company.

And you wouldn't be making health care decisions for your employees either, hence the falseness of the headline.
 
2013-11-26 04:38:19 PM

Shryke: Headso: If the subsidies were being paid for by the poor and middle class instead of the wealthy none of the people who tell you what to think would have a problem with the ACA, "all this mess" is an ad campaign to move an agenda.

Let me get this straight: I would not have a problem with the ACA if the end users were actually paying for the services they used, based on what they used.

Yes, I have no problem with that. This is, of course, the opposite of what the ACA does.

That said, the "mess" I am referring to predates the ACA by several decades.


That's the system we had before the ACA. You can see how well it's worked out.

Insurance is not on a "pay per use" system. It's a constant input so we can amortize costs across people. If I get cancer, there's no way I could pay for how much I'd use in the system. But now, I pay more into the system than I use on the off chance that I do get cancer or other serious illnesses.

Do you think that your employer should be able to a-la-carte choose which healthcare you're allowed to use? Because that's what it seems like you're advocating, and is the exact opposite of empowering the person. It makes the employee much more of a slave, and gives the corporation master status. Can it with the "just find a different job" shiat, too. If someone has to choose between not eating tomorrow and working for a bad company, you know which one they'll choose. Believe it or not, not everyone has thousands of dollars in the bank and the ability to pick and choose employers at their whim. Yet, they're still people and do not deserve to be taken advantage of.
 
2013-11-26 04:38:49 PM

DamnYankees: BravadoGT: In as much as it's the same standard as other civil law cases--yes.  You file a lawsuit for anything, and a court will review it.  You can allege that your neighbor is from mars and ate all your crabgrass and now owes you $3300 in gold bars, and a court will review the case for merit before kicking you to the curb.  Every time.  Why should this be different?  It doesn't mean specious will get a pass and shape policy.  Moreover--since the government publicly and voluntarily accepted a high burden here--they certainly seemed willing to take on the responsibility,  Isn't the best course of action to let their power to be checked?

I agree with this in general, but I'm unclear on what the nature claim here is. We seem to be vacillating between 2 different claims, and I haven't been sure what it is you're thinking about:

1) A claim on behalf of the corporation, claiming the the corporation itself has some religious beliefs which are being violated.

2) A claim on behalf of a shareholder of a corporation, claiming that by imposing certain laws on the corporation, the religious rights of the shareholder are being violated.

Which is it? Because these are 2 distinct claims that need to be responded to differently.


All this talk about "corporations having religion" is a red herring.  It's purely about whether a for-profit employer can assert a claim against the Federal government for infringing on his/her/its religious beliefs with the Obamacare mandate.  Hobby Lobby organization structure is tiny and religiously homogenous.  The owners are all in the same family, and assert their beliefs with one voice. 

There's no reason to deny them standing on the basis of the father incorporating the business and sharing ownership with his children. 

Oh--and I believe there is legal precedent for non-profit corporations suing the government under the RFRA
 
2013-11-26 04:39:07 PM

BravadoGT: No--I'm saying SCOTUS isn't bogging themselves down with the business structure of the employer.They are only deciding whether a for-profit employer (any for-profit employer) can object to Obamacare under the RFRA and the 1st amendment.


And yet you conveniently are not addressing the fact that in a corporation the "employer" is not a person. The "employer" is the corporation, which is a legal fiction. How can a non-individual, which is definitionally incapable of having religious beliefs, base any claim on the RFRA?
 
2013-11-26 04:39:26 PM

Headso: yep my bad, you think the owners of hobby lobby are buying their employees insurance with their own personal money not that the hobby lobby has emotions.


They own the business, they have the say just as you do in your business.

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Paying a living wage and not working someone to death


If you don't like your pay and you don't like your hours, you are not forced by anyone to work there. Nor should you be forced to work there. Or do anything against your will for that matter.

Hobodeluxe: well what exactly is their standing for filing this suit?
how does it harm them other than their feelings?
why does it matter to them if their employees' insurance covers contraceptives?


Why does it matter to you?

Hobodeluxe: it's not them purchasing them. the employees are.
that money they give the insurance company is actually their employee's deferred compensation.
The employees are actually purchasing the plan.
All the company is doing is getting them a discount.


So how about this? They have no company insurance and they choose to buy their own insurance that will cover whatever their little hearts desire. Better yet they can make the choice to go to work elsewhere that offers them something more attractive. You're hiring aren't you? $20/hour plus full benes too I'm sure.
 
2013-11-26 04:39:40 PM
Company: My religious belief is that the US Dollar is an evil currency so I need to pay employees with credit to the company store... because 1st Amendment!
 
2013-11-26 04:39:58 PM
You don't like it?   Go buy your own health insurance.
 
2013-11-26 04:40:42 PM

Qellaqan: My read is that they said, 'yes, that is unfair', and made it 'fair'


You're making my point. Judges don't make rulings based on what's "fair" in the abstract. If you want to declare something as unconstitutional, you need to point to something in the actual constitution. "Fairness" as a general concept isn't in there. That's why its horrible judging.
 
2013-11-26 04:41:46 PM

Shryke: Headso: yes I know, the ACA gives poor people coverage with the medicare expansion and helps the lower middle and middle class with subsidies, I know that is a problem for conservatives.

Anything that can't be paid for is a problem for everyone. The best part about this, at least from my side of the coin, is the ass-raping the young are going to get is near-instant, unlike the Great Society initiatives that slowly but surely stole their money.


You should google the hippocratic oath and learn that even before Obamacare people still would get care even without coverage. You should also google "health care spending growth at it's lowest" and then come back and amend your concern trolling about costs.
 
2013-11-26 04:41:51 PM

Lawnchair: Cubicle Jockey: Debeo Summa Credo: Why not leave it to individuals to go on these great exchanges and purchase their own insurance? Why fragment the market with employer mandates?


The individual plans would cost more than the negotiated group rates.

I can see why that would be pre-PPACA (selection bias... half of Americans couldn't enroll in an individual plan for any amount of money).  But, post-PPACA where the individual plans are community rated?   There's a tiny bit of difference in overhead (and I'd say the employer-based plans might have higher overhead really... the insurer has to keep track of each enrollee anyway).  There's still a little selection bias (really really sick people don't tend to have jobs).  But, overall, why should group rates be much lower any more?


Exactly. If the exchanges are so great, let people buy their own insurance. With community rating it wouldn't be much, if any, more expensive than group plans. And the consumer would in many cases get more choice than under group cafeteria plans.
 
2013-11-26 04:42:09 PM

Novart: Coastal


Never said the man or the party was perfect.

Given a choice between someone listening in on my phone conversation vs being forced to breed, I'll take the spying.

No spying is wrong and I can't stand it. But if I get knocked up due to rape, guess what, I'll drive to wherever I need to and take whatever pill I need to get rid of it.

Also, I have no party affiliation. I refuse based on principle.
 
2013-11-26 04:42:33 PM
2010 - Corporations are People
2014 - People have religious rights so therefore Corporations have religious rights
2016 - Stand your ground is upheld for Corporations, employees can be shot at will
2020 - Layoffs become known as corporate abortions

isomkuadejournal.com
 
2013-11-26 04:42:38 PM

Pitabred: If I get cancer, there's no way I could pay for how much I'd use in the system.


False.

Additionally, it is indicative of the shiat logic most of the left attach to "health insurance" in the first place.

By definition, health insurance premiums exceed the amount consumed. Or the company closes. Health insurance isn't magic; the opposite is true: it is very good math. The only "magic" in this discussion is the preposterous idea that insuring already sick/disabled/dying people can somehow work out to "affordable", via redistribution.
 
2013-11-26 04:43:06 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Exactly. If the exchanges are so great, let people buy their own insurance.


This is, like, one step above "oh yeah, well if you love exchanges so much, why don't you marry them!"
 
2013-11-26 04:43:36 PM

Triumph: DamnYankees: Triumph: swaniefrmreddeer: This won't end well if the SCOTUS allows the companies to deny contraception.

I think they're only talking about the morning after abortion pills and regular abortions, not contraception.

What's the legal basis by which a corporation would have the right to deny one form of medical care on the basis of religious belief, but not another?

Oh, I don't really think there is one, I just hate it when people call abortion contraception.


Really?  How often does that happen?
 
2013-11-26 04:43:37 PM

Hobodeluxe: 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.


Well the company is already dictating that that portion of the employee's compensation be spent on medical care. Obviously they can dictate to employees how their money is spent.
 
2013-11-26 04:44:09 PM

The Irresponsible Captain: Debeo Summa Credo: The Irresponsible Captain: It boggles my mind that we have to ask this question.

I hope I'm not disappointed in my country again.

/But I probably will be.

It boggles the mind that we are forcing employers to pay for insurance in the first place.

Why not leave it to individuals to go on these great exchanges and purchase their own insurance? Why fragment the market with employer mandates? It's completely illogical.

Because it's a Republican idea...


That's pathetic.

"Hey dems, your health care plan sucks"

"but but but it's a Republican idea!!"
 
2013-11-26 04:44:23 PM
My new religious belief is that it's my duty to fire all my Christian employees. That's ok right? Because religious freedom
 
2013-11-26 04:44:47 PM
.

Headso: Mr. Right: Employers should be prohibited from offering health insurance to their employees; individuals should be encouraged (if not mandated) to set up HSAs when they are young and maintain them and that should be the norm for health insurance.  At that point, you can take your risk pools and place them where a colonoscopy would be required to find them.

Citizens should just have a certain level of coverage no HSA required then if you want additional or better coverage you can purchase it. What you advocate puts more of the burden on the middle class and poor.



More importantly, what happens when health expenses exceed savings for unlucky individuals?

A thousand 20 year olds start an HSA, putting $3,000 into their accounts. The lucky bank administering those HSAs has $3 million in new capital.
At the end of the year, one of those people gets in a car accident. Another discovers she has aggressive breast cancer. A third comes down with MRSA.

What happens to those three people with only access to $3000 in their HSAs who are facing five or six figure medical bills? In a normal risk pool situation, there would be $3 million (less admin) available for coverage.
 
2013-11-26 04:46:05 PM

Shryke: Pitabred: If I get cancer, there's no way I could pay for how much I'd use in the system.

False.


Sure. Just because you say so? You're asserting I'm in the position to be contributing millions of dollars to the hospital/drug company/etc. to pay for my cancer treatments to make up for my use of the system?

Additionally, it is indicative of the shiat logic most of the left attach to "health insurance" in the first place.

By definition, health insurance premiums exceed the amount consumed. Or the company closes. Health insurance isn't magic; the opposite is true: it is very good math. The only "magic" in this discussion is the preposterous idea that insuring already sick/disabled/dying people can somehow work out to "affordable", via redistribution.


So... let them die? fark the poor, sick and disabled, they had it coming to them? Damn. Nice to know you're a sociopath, and so labeled.
 
2013-11-26 04:46:17 PM

DamnYankees: Debeo Summa Credo: Exactly. If the exchanges are so great, let people buy their own insurance.

This is, like, one step above "oh yeah, well if you love exchanges so much, why don't you marry them!"


So, do the exchanges not work? What's wrong with having people buy their own insurance?
 
2013-11-26 04:46:53 PM

Headso: You should google the hippocratic oath and learn that even before Obamacare people still would get care even without coverage. You should also google "health care spending growth at it's lowest" and then come back and amend your concern trolling about costs.


The hippocratic oath is not a contract to slavery (although you want it to be). But wtf this has to do with insurance, I have no idea.

Second, the expansion of cost inflation, or deceleration of same, is meaningless, when it means the product delivered is far worse. That's what is happening here. Millions of people are losing their current policies in hopes of gaining new, nearly "free" ones, and thus consumption has declined. This is much like cash-for-clunkers: you are simply playing accounting games.
 
2013-11-26 04:47:02 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Headso: yep my bad, you think the owners of hobby lobby are buying their employees insurance with their own personal money not that the hobby lobby has emotions.

They own the business, they have the say just as you do in your business.


Why don't they just pay everyone directly out of their own pockets and assume all the liability of running this large company directly instead of limiting their liability with an incorporation? They get the benefits of being a company they should have to deal with the consequences too.
 
2013-11-26 04:47:03 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: So, do the exchanges not work? What's wrong with having people buy their own insurance?


Nothing. I have no objection to letting everyone buy on exchanges if they want to. I'm not sure what the argument against it is, honestly - there might be a good one.
 
2013-11-26 04:48:50 PM

Shryke: Farking Canuck: I did not say that religion was not protected.

Just that religious people were delusional and worse. Oh what a difference.


Well those are your words. But I am certainly not going to argue with you.
 
2013-11-26 04:49:01 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Exactly. If the exchanges are so great, let people buy their own insurance. With community rating it wouldn't be much, if any, more expensive than group plans. And the consumer would in many cases get more choice than under group cafeteria plans.


This is a point where you and I (about as strong an ACA advocate as you'll find, even if I'd rather we went ahead and got first-world health care) agree.  The exchanges would, one should hope anyway, have better competition than they do now if virtually everyone was buying from them.
 
2013-11-26 04:49:27 PM
I'm in the camp of people that think that if an employer has a religion, they have the right to STFU and not allow it to effect the lives of the employees.
If they violate the right to STFU, they have the right to be imprisoned for forcing their beliefs/bullshiat on their employees.

That's my camp, and I'm staying there.
We have s'mores, too.
 
2013-11-26 04:49:35 PM
If Hobby Lobby wins this, I'm hoping that this is the death knell of having health benefits tied to your employer. The amount of coverage should be between you and your insurer and no one else. Hobby Lobby and other places can just not offer insurance and simply make up the difference in a higher wage.

/Yeah, right.
//They'll give instructions on how to apply for Medicaid
///Fark them and the horse they rode in on
 
2013-11-26 04:49:39 PM
"A roofer listens to this, not his wallet."
 
2013-11-26 04:50:14 PM

Shryke: The hippocratic oath is not a contract to slavery (although you want it to be). But wtf this has to do with insurance, I have no idea.


you don't understand the link between being able to cover the cost of the care doctors are required to provide you?
 
2013-11-26 04:51:40 PM

Coastalgrl: Novart: Coastal

Never said the man or the party was perfect.

Given a choice between someone listening in on my phone conversation vs being forced to breed, I'll take the spying.

No spying is wrong and I can't stand it. But if I get knocked up due to rape, guess what, I'll drive to wherever I need to and take whatever pill I need to get rid of it.

Also, I have no party affiliation. I refuse based on principle.


That's good, but only one of those things is actually happening.

If corporations/Republican lawmakers did provide an exception for rape (or incest), would you be ok with not getting free contraceptives?
 
2013-11-26 04:51:54 PM

DamnYankees: Debeo Summa Credo: So, do the exchanges not work? What's wrong with having people buy their own insurance?

Nothing. I have no objection to letting everyone buy on exchanges if they want to. I'm not sure what the argument against it is, honestly - there might be a good one.


Well, the exchanges aren't working yet because who ever programmed their web site is an idiot

I think they will be working eventually.

The problem is that people don't want to pay for their own insurance they want some 'other guy' to do it.
 
2013-11-26 04:51:58 PM

Cubicle Jockey: .Headso: Mr. Right: Employers should be prohibited from offering health insurance to their employees; individuals should be encouraged (if not mandated) to set up HSAs when they are young and maintain them and that should be the norm for health insurance.  At that point, you can take your risk pools and place them where a colonoscopy would be required to find them.

Citizens should just have a certain level of coverage no HSA required then if you want additional or better coverage you can purchase it. What you advocate puts more of the burden on the middle class and poor.


More importantly, what happens when health expenses exceed savings for unlucky individuals?

A thousand 20 year olds start an HSA, putting $3,000 into their accounts. The lucky bank administering those HSAs has $3 million in new capital.
At the end of the year, one of those people gets in a car accident. Another discovers she has aggressive breast cancer. A third comes down with MRSA.

What happens to those three people with only access to $3000 in their HSAs who are facing five or six figure medical bills? In a normal risk pool situation, there would be $3 million (less admin) available for coverage.


What happens when people dont have to join until they get Breast Cancer or MRSA ?
 
2013-11-26 04:52:48 PM

DamnYankees: Debeo Summa Credo: So, do the exchanges not work? What's wrong with having people buy their own insurance?

Nothing. I have no objection to letting everyone buy on exchanges if they want to. I'm not sure what the argument against it is, honestly - there might be a good one.


The argument is that there shouldn't be an employer mandate. We have this farked up hybrid system now. Let employees buy their own insurance, which with community rating has decreased prices for risky individuals.

Much better than forcing employers to add a benefit and administer a plan and mandate what is provided in the benefit.
 
2013-11-26 04:52:50 PM

Pitabred: Sure. Just because you say so? You're asserting I'm in the position to be contributing millions of dollars to the hospital/drug company/etc. to pay for my cancer treatments to make up for my use of the system?


All cancer treatments cost millions of dollars? shiat, if you are going to belt out the bullshiat, why not go for billions of dollars? Or trillions? Gorillions!

So... let them die? fark the poor, sick and disabled, they had it coming to them? Damn. Nice to know you're a sociopath, and so labeled.

This is very tired, and childish, argument. Everyone in the world dies, Bleedingheartbred. Let's turn this argument around, as you seem so very concerned: should the government pay for a dual lung transplant for my grandmother, who is 97, and then indenture you for the cost of it? Do you feel that is just, and a wise policy? I expect huge amounts of leftist compassion in your reply, don't disappoint me.
 
2013-11-26 04:53:50 PM

DamnYankees: BravadoGT: No--I'm saying SCOTUS isn't bogging themselves down with the business structure of the employer.They are only deciding whether a for-profit employer (any for-profit employer) can object to Obamacare under the RFRA and the 1st amendment.

And yet you conveniently are not addressing the fact that in a corporation the "employer" is not a person. The "employer" is the corporation, which is a legal fiction. How can a non-individual, which is definitionally incapable of having religious beliefs, base any claim on the RFRA?


There's already legal precedent for non-profit corporations suing under the RFRA.  Look at Navajo Nation v. US Forest Service,  The plaintiff were "
NAVAJO NATION; Havasupai Tribe; Rex Tilousi; Dianna Uqualla; Sierra Club; White Mountain Apache Nation; Yavapai-Apache Nation; The Flagstaff Activist Network, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and
Hualapai Tribe; Norris Nez; Bill Bucky Preston; Hopi Tribe; Center for Biological Diversity"

Lots of fictitious entities, all had standing.  They lost their case, sure--but on its merits.
 
2013-11-26 04:53:58 PM

theorellior: If Hobby Lobby wins this, I'm hoping that this is the death knell of having health benefits tied to your employer. The amount of coverage should be between you and your insurer and no one else. Hobby Lobby and other places can just not offer insurance and simply make up the difference in a higher wage.

/Yeah, right.
//They'll give instructions on how to apply for Medicaid
///Fark them and the horse they rode in on


You know this isnt acceptable.   The argument will be that the evil companies will just take the money and put it in the bathtub and swim in it like Scrooge McDuck.

We need to take the money from the companies.  Then the government can allocate that money how it SHOULD be spent.
 
2013-11-26 04:54:14 PM

Headso: you don't understand the link between being able to cover the cost of the care doctors are required to provide you?


I understand you translate the oath as an obligation to free health care.
 
2013-11-26 04:54:17 PM

Ned Stark: Well the company is already dictating that that portion of the employee's compensation be spent on medical care. Obviously they can dictate to employees how their money is spent.



Can the company dictate what brand of car the employer buys, as commuting costs are inherently included as part of salary/wage compensation?

The company makes me take four weeks of vacation a year, can they dictate to me where I go?
 
2013-11-26 04:55:02 PM

TheWhoppah: Corporations do not have a right to exist. There are conditions that must be met before a corporation may be formed and there are conditions that must be met to maintain the corporate charter. A corporation that does not operate in the public interest may be dissolved. Just make compliance with Obamacare a condition for incorporation and this question is answered.


That's tough sledding, given a right to assembly and speech. In the simplest analysis, corporations are just a group of people -- with all of the rights possessed.
 
2013-11-26 04:55:30 PM

Cubicle Jockey: Ned Stark: Well the company is already dictating that that portion of the employee's compensation be spent on medical care. Obviously they can dictate to employees how their money is spent.


Can the company dictate what brand of car the employer buys, as commuting costs are inherently included as part of salary/wage compensation?

The company makes me take four weeks of vacation a year, can they dictate to me where I go?


Don't give them any ideas.
 
2013-11-26 04:56:02 PM
ITT: People who don't understand risk pools and what insurance actually is.
 
2013-11-26 04:56:13 PM

BravadoGT: DamnYankees: BravadoGT: No--I'm saying SCOTUS isn't bogging themselves down with the business structure of the employer.They are only deciding whether a for-profit employer (any for-profit employer) can object to Obamacare under the RFRA and the 1st amendment.

And yet you conveniently are not addressing the fact that in a corporation the "employer" is not a person. The "employer" is the corporation, which is a legal fiction. How can a non-individual, which is definitionally incapable of having religious beliefs, base any claim on the RFRA?

There's already legal precedent for non-profit corporations suing under the RFRA.  Look at Navajo Nation v. US Forest Service,  The plaintiff were "
NAVAJO NATION; Havasupai Tribe; Rex Tilousi; Dianna Uqualla; Sierra Club; White Mountain Apache Nation; Yavapai-Apache Nation; The Flagstaff Activist Network, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and
Hualapai Tribe; Norris Nez; Bill Bucky Preston; Hopi Tribe; Center for Biological Diversity"

Lots of fictitious entities, all had standing.  They lost their case, sure--but on its merits.


While I appreciate the cite, I'm not reading a hundred page opinion for a fark thread. How about you answer the question I posed above?

I'm unclear on what the nature claim here is. You seem to be vacillating between 2 different claims, and I haven't been sure what it is you're thinking about:

1) A claim on behalf of the corporation, claiming the the corporation itself has some religious beliefs which are being violated.

2) A claim on behalf of a shareholder of a corporation, claiming that by imposing certain laws on the corporation, the religious rights of the shareholder are being violated.

Which is it? Because these are 2 distinct claims that need to be responded to differently.
 
2013-11-26 04:56:24 PM

Hobodeluxe: 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.


That's what I think about this situation. Wouldn't this set a precedent for allowing employers to dictate how employees spend their wages?

/Lawyers, please help.........
 
2013-11-26 04:57:12 PM

Shryke: Headso: you don't understand the link between being able to cover the cost of the care doctors are required to provide you?

I understand you translate the oath as an obligation to free health care.


that's the thing it's not "free" someone has to pay for the care.
 
2013-11-26 04:57:13 PM

BravadoGT: DamnYankees: BravadoGT: No--I'm saying SCOTUS isn't bogging themselves down with the business structure of the employer.They are only deciding whether a for-profit employer (any for-profit employer) can object to Obamacare under the RFRA and the 1st amendment.

And yet you conveniently are not addressing the fact that in a corporation the "employer" is not a person. The "employer" is the corporation, which is a legal fiction. How can a non-individual, which is definitionally incapable of having religious beliefs, base any claim on the RFRA?

There's already legal precedent for non-profit corporations suing under the RFRA.  Look at Navajo Nation v. US Forest Service,  The plaintiff were "
NAVAJO NATION; Havasupai Tribe; Rex Tilousi; Dianna Uqualla; Sierra Club; White Mountain Apache Nation; Yavapai-Apache Nation; The Flagstaff Activist Network, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and
Hualapai Tribe; Norris Nez; Bill Bucky Preston; Hopi Tribe; Center for Biological Diversity"

Lots of fictitious entities, all had standing.  They lost their case, sure--but on its merits.


That being said--I think the Flagstaff Activist Network is a Presbyterian ;)
 
2013-11-26 04:58:38 PM
Dear Eden Foods

You suck.

Seriously.  I bought your food when I could - hell, my friend used to farm literally around the corner from your building.  I like supporting Michiganders and farmers.  I like supporting the little guy going up against the Big Food Conglomertates who are deciding what constitutes 'organic' and making it harder and harder for honest smaller companies to use the label.  I still point people toward this article

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/business/organic-food-purists-worr y- about-big-companies-influence.html

whenever the subject comes up.

But because of this:

crooksandliars.com

I really don't want to anymore.  Buy your products, I mean.  You can have your personal beliefs, that's fine.  But no, you don't get to force them on your employees - at the expense of their health - anymore.

Oh, and this?

Potter, a Roman Catholic, claimed that he opposes "contraception, abortion and abortifacients" because they "almost always involve immoral and unnatural practices."

This Michigander, born and raised Roman Catholic, who is on birth control for non contraceptive reasons, would beg to differ.  And would also like to question if having a child born from a rape, or being forced to carry a child to term your doctor has informed you will be dead upon delivery because you couldn't afford an abortion - and childbirth does not have a 0% fatality rate - is immoral or not.

But you can have those beliefs, if you'd like.  But I'm not giving you any more profits to spend.
 Sincerely,

A Hotlinking Michigander
 
2013-11-26 04:59:41 PM
OK, well.  Your company's religion required contraception.

Mine requires insemination.

You don't like it?  Too bad for you.  Assume the position.
 
2013-11-26 04:59:43 PM

Nutsac_Jim: You know this isnt acceptable. The argument will be that the evil companies will just take the money and put it in the bathtub and swim in it like Scrooge McDuck.

We need to take the money from the companies. Then the government can allocate that money how it SHOULD be spent.


If a company that provides a health benefit as part of its compensation package decides to no longer carry that package, and it refuses to adjust monetary compensation accordingly, should very well be forced to pay their employees the full amount they've been contractually entitled to. How about them apples?
 
2013-11-26 04:59:50 PM

MyRandomName: 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.

When did Hobby Lobby start do ing bedroom checks on their employees? They just don't want to pay for it. They aren't banning contraceptions for their employees.

Your logical conclusion is idiotic.



Grasping simple concept may be a problem for you. No company is being force to buy contraceptives for their employees. A company operating in the US has to obey a large number of laws, a company can object all they want to the minimum wage but it does not change it  because they have a religion that says owing slaves is acceptable. If a company does not want to offer health insurance to employees as part of their compensation they are free to move to whatever backwards country they want, if they do comply with the laws of the US about offering health insurance to employees their involvement with it is strictly monetary and invasion of privacy should be limited by that factor. If they use money as the guide, contraception is far cheaper than paying for one pregnancy to term and delivery. Allowing for profit companies to make decision about activities outside of work hours that have no effect on said job is inching towards allowing companies to  just purchase employees  lives.  Supporting the asinine position of hobby lobby is tantamount to supporting  indenture servitude for all people that wish to eat and sleep indoors because they are always free to leave the serfdom. Not everyone has the ability to strike out on their own and become a galt.
 
2013-11-26 05:00:54 PM

OgreMagi: What if your employer is a Christian Scientist, which doesn't allow a whole lot of pretty basic medical stuff.  Or how about $cientologists who wouldn't allow psychiatric treatment or therapy other than their e-meter scam?

If they rule in favor of the religious whack jobs, it will completely destroy our right to make our own choices.  It will put those choices in the hands of farking morons (or cheap bastards looking for an easy way out of offering coverage).


That's the thing about people with hardcore ideologies.  They never think "what if this principle I'm fighting for went both ways?"  In many cases they're not CAPABLE of thinking that way.
 
2013-11-26 05:01:28 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Headso: yep my bad, you think the owners of hobby lobby are buying their employees insurance with their own personal money not that the hobby lobby has emotions.

They own the business, they have the say just as you do in your business.

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Paying a living wage and not working someone to death

If you don't like your pay and you don't like your hours, you are not forced by anyone to work there. Nor should you be forced to work there. Or do anything against your will for that matter.

Hobodeluxe: well what exactly is their standing for filing this suit?
how does it harm them other than their feelings?
why does it matter to them if their employees' insurance covers contraceptives?

Why does it matter to you?

Hobodeluxe: it's not them purchasing them. the employees are.
that money they give the insurance company is actually their employee's deferred compensation.
The employees are actually purchasing the plan.
All the company is doing is getting them a discount.

So how about this? They have no company insurance and they choose to buy their own insurance that will cover whatever their little hearts desire. Better yet they can make the choice to go to work elsewhere that offers them something more attractive. You're hiring aren't you? $20/hour plus full benes too I'm sure.


"If you don't like your pay and you don't like your hours, you are not forced by anyone to work there. Nor should you be forced to work there. Or do anything against your will for that matter."

My will is to bash yor moms head in with a rock. So that's ok? Right?
Do you even farking understand what a state if nature is? Are you that simple?

Jesus H. Christmas on a pogo stick. What candy land fantasy world do you live in? I should be able to spit nickles out of my belly button and have a new pony every day. Because because. But listen up farktard. Life ain't all shiats & giggles idealism, cold hard reality sets in after you move out of mom's basement. And if I'm gonna pay good money to be part of civilization you can fark right off if you think your dopey perfect rainbow fantasy world is gonna make me and mine eat shiat for your farktarded delusion.
 
2013-11-26 05:01:30 PM

Headso: Why don't they just pay everyone directly out of their own pockets and assume all the liability of running this large company directly instead of limiting their liability with an incorporation?


Because it's their choice to do so. Perhaps you don't like this and think they should be forced to operate differently.
 
2013-11-26 05:03:59 PM

trekkiecougar: Hobodeluxe: 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.

That's what I think about this situation. Wouldn't this set a precedent for allowing employers to dictate how employees spend their wages?

/Lawyers, please help.........


The employer is paying for something (health insurance) and handing it to the employee as part of their compensation. The problem is that the government is trying to dictate what the health insurance coverage covers. They shouldn't even be mandating that the company supplies any coverage.

If you don't like the compensation that the employer is offering in exchange for your time whether it be the salary, the days off, the insurance plan,  or the size of the hot cocoa sampler you get for Christmas go find some other job that is more to your liking.
 
2013-11-26 05:04:13 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?


Which raises the interesting possibility of one company converting another!   Yes, Hobby Lobby you WERE Christian but as of 2017, you're now HINDU!
 
2013-11-26 05:04:18 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: My will is to bash yor moms head in with a rock. So that's ok?


So let me get this straight. You not being forced to work somewhere that you don't want to work at is the same as you committing assault.

Not sure I'm following you there.
 
2013-11-26 05:05:56 PM

Cubicle Jockey: Ned Stark: Well the company is already dictating that that portion of the employee's compensation be spent on medical care. Obviously they can dictate to employees how their money is spent.


Can the company dictate what brand of car the employer buys, as commuting costs are inherently included as part of salary/wage compensation?

The company makes me take four weeks of vacation a year, can they dictate to me where I go?


If the company is actually buying you a car, they should absolutely be able to decide what kind f car they buy you. That's how company cars work.

If a company provided, as part of their compensation, an all expenses paid vacation, yes they should be able to decide where the appropriate destinations for the paid for vacation would be.

If you use your salary to buy a car/vacation, the employer should not have a say. Likewise, if you use your wages to buy birth control or insurance that covers birth control, the employer should not have a say.

Good analogies.
 
2013-11-26 05:06:34 PM

Cubicle Jockey: Ned Stark: Well the company is already dictating that that portion of the employee's compensation be spent on medical care. Obviously they can dictate to employees how their money is spent.


Can the company dictate what brand of car the employer buys, as commuting costs are inherently included as part of salary/wage compensation?

The company makes me take four weeks of vacation a year, can they dictate to me where I go?


If they pay out a seperate gas compensation apart from your wage they may be able to enforce, say, mileage or safety standards and deny you your company gas card if you don't meet. It would merit court attention for sure.(and with this court I'd bet on the corporation winning)
 
2013-11-26 05:06:39 PM

theorellior: Nutsac_Jim: You know this isnt acceptable. The argument will be that the evil companies will just take the money and put it in the bathtub and swim in it like Scrooge McDuck.

We need to take the money from the companies. Then the government can allocate that money how it SHOULD be spent.

If a company that provides a health benefit as part of its compensation package decides to no longer carry that package, and it refuses to adjust monetary compensation accordingly, should very well be forced to pay their employees the full amount they've been contractually entitled to. How about them apples?


If there is a real contract heck yes

But mostly the company can decide to modify your compensation at will (maybe with a little lead time)
 
2013-11-26 05:06:44 PM

Cubicle Jockey: .Headso: Mr. Right: Employers should be prohibited from offering health insurance to their employees; individuals should be encouraged (if not mandated) to set up HSAs when they are young and maintain them and that should be the norm for health insurance.  At that point, you can take your risk pools and place them where a colonoscopy would be required to find them.

Citizens should just have a certain level of coverage no HSA required then if you want additional or better coverage you can purchase it. What you advocate puts more of the burden on the middle class and poor.


More importantly, what happens when health expenses exceed savings for unlucky individuals?

A thousand 20 year olds start an HSA, putting $3,000 into their accounts. The lucky bank administering those HSAs has $3 million in new capital.
At the end of the year, one of those people gets in a car accident. Another discovers she has aggressive breast cancer. A third comes down with MRSA.

What happens to those three people with only access to $3000 in their HSAs who are facing five or six figure medical bills? In a normal risk pool situation, there would be $3 million (less admin) available for coverage.


With all the derpers in here I figured you would have gotten a reply to this but apparently the ones here only know enough to repeat talking points and can't even go off script to advocate for their ideals. The HSAs are supposed to be coupled with catastrophic insurance so theoretically you'd have your savings account for all the small shiat and your catastrophic insurance for the big stuff. In theory it doesn't sound that bad but it's just yet another thing where the poor and middle class are the ones carrying the burden taking money out of their pockets and out of the economy that requires consumer spending.
 
2013-11-26 05:07:06 PM

DamnYankees: Debeo Summa Credo: So, do the exchanges not work? What's wrong with having people buy their own insurance?

Nothing. I have no objection to letting everyone buy on exchanges if they want to. I'm not sure what the argument against it is, honestly - there might be a good one.


The only argument I've seen is just that we don't need the government to run them, which sounds reasonable to me.  As to Credo's question, do the exchanges not work?  Well, apparently they don't.  I find it strange that Republicans want to move away from employer provided health care and Dems don't.  Employer health care is something that makes it difficult to leave a job for a better job, especially if you have any sort of existing condition.
 
2013-11-26 05:08:04 PM

Mike_LowELL: R.A.Danny: You just hurt my brain, Mike_LoweLL.

That is the weakness inside of you leaving.  Embrace conservatism.  Embrace the chalice of freedom.  Drink from the chalice.  Rise.


Quite right. The pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle; the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true.
 
2013-11-26 05:08:32 PM

DamnYankees: BravadoGT: DamnYankees: BravadoGT: No--I'm saying SCOTUS isn't bogging themselves down with the business structure of the employer.They are only deciding whether a for-profit employer (any for-profit employer) can object to Obamacare under the RFRA and the 1st amendment.

And yet you conveniently are not addressing the fact that in a corporation the "employer" is not a person. The "employer" is the corporation, which is a legal fiction. How can a non-individual, which is definitionally incapable of having religious beliefs, base any claim on the RFRA?

There's already legal precedent for non-profit corporations suing under the RFRA.  Look at Navajo Nation v. US Forest Service,  The plaintiff were "
NAVAJO NATION; Havasupai Tribe; Rex Tilousi; Dianna Uqualla; Sierra Club; White Mountain Apache Nation; Yavapai-Apache Nation; The Flagstaff Activist Network, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and
Hualapai Tribe; Norris Nez; Bill Bucky Preston; Hopi Tribe; Center for Biological Diversity"

Lots of fictitious entities, all had standing.  They lost their case, sure--but on its merits.

While I appreciate the cite, I'm not reading a hundred page opinion for a fark thread. How about you answer the question I posed above?

I'm unclear on what the nature claim here is. You seem to be vacillating between 2 different claims, and I haven't been sure what it is you're thinking about:

1) A claim on behalf of the corporation, claiming the the corporation itself has some religious beliefs which are being violated.

2) A claim on behalf of a shareholder of a corporation, claiming that by imposing certain laws on the corporation, the religious rights of the shareholder are being violated.

Which is it? Because these are 2 distinct claims that need to be responded to differently.


Number 1.
 
2013-11-26 05:08:47 PM

BravadoGT: There's no reason to deny them standing on the basis of the father incorporating the business and sharing ownership with his children.


There is, because the whole purpose of incorporation is to form a separate legal person to provide isolation from the the individual(s) that own the business. You can either have that isolation or not; you don't get to pick and choose when it applies and when it does not. If he wants to operate the business as a sole proprietorship, with the limitations and liabilities that imposes, he's welcome to do that. But he can't take limited liability and shared ownership and the like from the incorporation statues and then pretend the corporation is merely his alter ego.
 
2013-11-26 05:09:02 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: If the company is actually buying you a car, they should absolutely be able to decide what kind f car they buy you. That's how company cars work.

If a company provided, as part of their compensation, an all expenses paid vacation, yes they should be able to decide where the appropriate destinations for the paid for vacation would be.


I think the word "should" is doing a lot of work in these sentences. Do you mean "should" in the general sense that public policy should not interfere between competing options (like vacations to France of Germany)? Or "should" in the sense that the choice should generally be available, but the government still has the right to place regulations (i.e. you can't mandate vacations in the middle of war zones). I dont see anything constitutionallywrong with the government saying you can't limit your vacation to going to war-torn hellholes, or saying that the Company car has to meet some emissions standards or nothing.
 
2013-11-26 05:09:52 PM

Gordon Bennett: Mike_LowELL: R.A.Danny: You just hurt my brain, Mike_LoweLL.

That is the weakness inside of you leaving.  Embrace conservatism.  Embrace the chalice of freedom.  Drink from the chalice.  Rise.

Quite right. The pellet with the poison's in the vessel with the pestle; the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true.


What about the flagon with the dragon?
 
2013-11-26 05:10:08 PM

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: 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!!!


Maybe you could try more boldface and capitalization, you know, to really get your point across more clearly.
 
2013-11-26 05:10:53 PM

BravadoGT: Number 1.


Ok. So seriously just getting back to basics, how can a corporation have religious rights independent of its shareholders? Like, just in terms of metaphysics, that seems impossible to me. Literally impossible.
 
2013-11-26 05:11:01 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?


Badly.
 
2013-11-26 05:11:02 PM

DamnYankees: Qellaqan: My read is that they said, 'yes, that is unfair', and made it 'fair'

You're making my point. Judges don't make rulings based on what's "fair" in the abstract. If you want to declare something as unconstitutional, you need to point to something in the actual constitution. "Fairness" as a general concept isn't in there. That's why its horrible judging.


You can reach the VRA conclusion from Shelby using the same logic and basis as Brown v. Board.
 
2013-11-26 05:11:52 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Headso: Why don't they just pay everyone directly out of their own pockets and assume all the liability of running this large company directly instead of limiting their liability with an incorporation?

Because it's their choice to do so. Perhaps you don't like this and think they should be forced to operate differently.


It's their choice to pick which laws their company will follow?
 
2013-11-26 05:11:59 PM

profplump: BravadoGT: There's no reason to deny them standing on the basis of the father incorporating the business and sharing ownership with his children.

There is, because the whole purpose of incorporation is to form a separate legal person to provide

FINANCIAL isolation from the the individual(s) that own the business. You can either have that isolation or not; you don't get to pick and choose when it applies and when it does not. If he wants to operate the business as a sole proprietorship, with the limitations and liabilities that imposes, he's welcome to do that. But he can't take limited liability and shared ownership and the like from the incorporation statues and then pretend the corporation is merely his alter ego.

FTFY
 
2013-11-26 05:13:01 PM

This text is now purple: You can reach the VRA conclusion from Shelby using the same logic and basis as Brown v. Board.


pxlboy: 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?

Badly.


How so? Given the case in Shelby never even cited Brown, this is an odd claim to me.
 
2013-11-26 05:13:38 PM

This text is now purple: DamnYankees: Qellaqan: My read is that they said, 'yes, that is unfair', and made it 'fair'

You're making my point. Judges don't make rulings based on what's "fair" in the abstract. If you want to declare something as unconstitutional, you need to point to something in the actual constitution. "Fairness" as a general concept isn't in there. That's why its horrible judging.

You can reach the VRA conclusion from Shelby using the same logic and basis as Brown v. Board.


How so? Given the opinion in Shelby never even cited Brown, this is an odd claim to me.
 
2013-11-26 05:13:50 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Serious Post on Serious Thread: My will is to bash yor moms head in with a rock. So that's ok?

So let me get this straight. You not being forced to work somewhere that you don't want to work at is the same as you committing assault.

Not sure I'm following you there.


Yes. Again, if you've ever lived outside mom's basement, you would know economic coercion is tantamount to physical abuse. They both result in horrid bodily harm. Generally a simple physical assault is brief, so it's frankly less harmful.
 
2013-11-26 05:17:39 PM

BravadoGT: profplump: BravadoGT: There's no reason to deny them standing on the basis of the father incorporating the business and sharing ownership with his children.

There is, because the whole purpose of incorporation is to form a separate legal person to provide FINANCIAL isolation from the the individual(s) that own the business. You can either have that isolation or not; you don't get to pick and choose when it applies and when it does not. If he wants to operate the business as a sole proprietorship, with the limitations and liabilities that imposes, he's welcome to do that. But he can't take limited liability and shared ownership and the like from the incorporation statues and then pretend the corporation is merely his alter ego.

FTFY


it's not just financial, try and launder money for a cartel and see how much jail time you get and compare it to the jail time the banks or employees served for the same thing.
 
2013-11-26 05:18:12 PM
Why is the scope of this case limited to contraceptives? People (and therefore corporations which are people my friend) also have religious objections to all kinds of things, like chemotherapy, antibiotics, antidepressants, transfusions, etc. Why can't employers be exempted from covering those things if they object to them? Why just contraceptives?
 
2013-11-26 05:18:52 PM

DamnYankees: BravadoGT: No--I'm saying SCOTUS isn't bogging themselves down with the business structure of the employer.They are only deciding whether a for-profit employer (any for-profit employer) can object to Obamacare under the RFRA and the 1st amendment.

And yet you conveniently are not addressing the fact that in a corporation the "employer" is not a person. The "employer" is the corporation, which is a legal fiction. How can a non-individual, which is definitionally incapable of having religious beliefs, base any claim on the RFRA?


You need to show your work on that one.

The way it works is like this:
1. People have rights.
2. People have the right to form groups, in order to perform various actions. (see Right to Assembly)
3. While in those groups, they maintain their individual rights.
4. In part because of #3, the group itself maintains the rights possessed by its component parts. i.e. The group can be treated as a single person, with the rights of a single person.
5. A corporation is an entity made up of a group of people.
6. Because of #5, a corporation has the legal rights of a group.
7. Because of #4, a corporation has the rights of an individual.
8. Because of #7, a corporation can be treated as "fictitious" legal person, because it simplifies paperwork.

The problem with trying to dissolve the "fictitious" part, is that even if you remove it, the underlying rights are maintained, because much like Soylent Green, corporations are people.
 
2013-11-26 05:19:18 PM

someonelse: Why is the scope of this case limited to contraceptives? People (and therefore corporations which are people my friend) also have religious objections to all kinds of things, like chemotherapy, antibiotics, antidepressants, transfusions, etc. Why can't employers be exempted from covering those things if they object to them? Why just contraceptives?


Things doctors prescribe vs. elective things?
 
2013-11-26 05:19:28 PM

ciberido: Really?  How often does that happen?


Every 15 minutes.
Like Clockwork.
BBBBBAAAARRRKKKK!!!!! You humans will pay for ruining our homeland!! GRRRRRRRR!!!! Family Darkpaw of the Sabretooth Clan will slay you all!! BARK!
 
2013-11-26 05:19:51 PM

someonelse: Why is the scope of this case limited to contraceptives? People (and therefore corporations which are people my friend) also have religious objections to all kinds of things, like chemotherapy, antibiotics, antidepressants, transfusions, etc. Why can't employers be exempted from covering those things if they object to them? Why just contraceptives?


this is what boggles my mind.  especially since contraceptives are used for more than just preventing pregnancy.
 
2013-11-26 05:20:37 PM

flucto: someonelse: Why is the scope of this case limited to contraceptives? People (and therefore corporations which are people my friend) also have religious objections to all kinds of things, like chemotherapy, antibiotics, antidepressants, transfusions, etc. Why can't employers be exempted from covering those things if they object to them? Why just contraceptives?

Things doctors prescribe vs. elective things?


doctors prescribed me birth control so that i am not in so much pain i can't go to work.
 
2013-11-26 05:21:54 PM

DamnYankees: Debeo Summa Credo: If the company is actually buying you a car, they should absolutely be able to decide what kind f car they buy you. That's how company cars work.

If a company provided, as part of their compensation, an all expenses paid vacation, yes they should be able to decide where the appropriate destinations for the paid for vacation would be.

I think the word "should" is doing a lot of work in these sentences. Do you mean "should" in the general sense that public policy should not interfere between competing options (like vacations to France of Germany)? Or "should" in the sense that the choice should generally be available, but the government still has the right to place regulations (i.e. you can't mandate vacations in the middle of war zones). I dont see anything constitutionallywrong with the government saying you can't limit your vacation to going to war-torn hellholes, or saying that the Company car has to meet some emissions standards or nothing.


I see something wrong with the government requiring an employer to provide a company car, or all expenses paid vacations.

These are benefits that the company can provide at will, with the employee deciding how much he or she values the benefits in deciding whether to work there. Similar to how health care should be treated.
 
2013-11-26 05:22:06 PM
BravadoGT:In as much as it's the same standard as other civil law cases--yes.  You file a lawsuit for anything, and a court will review it.  You can allege that your neighbor is from mars and ate all your crabgrass and now owes you $3300 in gold bars, and a court will review the case for merit before kicking you to the curb.  Every time.

No, not crabgrass, silly person.  Your neighbor from Mars eats cars:  Cadillacs, Lincolns too,Mercuries, and Subarus.  And he doesn't stop, he keeps on eatin' cars. Then, when there's no more cars, he goes at night and eats up bars where the people meet.
 
2013-11-26 05:22:22 PM

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


What if I, as an employer, do not want my company-provided insurance plan to cover chemotherapy? Am I making a health care decision for my employees? For context, I could show you the portion of the bill that my insurance company paid for my course of chemo. But Fark cannot handle a file that large.
 
2013-11-26 05:22:26 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.


Amen. Now, next time someone dies from food poisoning, I say freeze McDonald's assets for the same period as a person would be sentenced for negligent homicide.

Do that and corporate personhood rocks. :D
 
2013-11-26 05:23:56 PM

This text is now purple: TheWhoppah: Corporations do not have a right to exist. There are conditions that must be met before a corporation may be formed and there are conditions that must be met to maintain the corporate charter. A corporation that does not operate in the public interest may be dissolved. Just make compliance with Obamacare a condition for incorporation and this question is answered.

That's tough sledding, given a right to assembly and speech. In the simplest analysis, corporations are just a group of people -- with all of the rights possessed.


Incorrect.  There are very specific rules for how a corporation is formed... you can't just assemble and say "woohoo look at us, we are now a corporation" and be done with it. The government sets the conditions under which a group may be incorporated and stay incorporated.
 
2013-11-26 05:23:56 PM

chairmenmeow47: doctors prescribed me birth control so that i am not in so much pain i can't go to work.


Personally I think all prescriptions should be covered. Condoms less so.
 
2013-11-26 05:24:32 PM

This text is now purple: 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.


I would have to disagree and say any past the first ten (and possibly even those ) are in fact unconstitutional because they amended (changed) the constitution. They obviously, therefore go against the founder's intentions and Jesus's.
 
2013-11-26 05:24:49 PM

This text is now purple: You need to show your work on that one.


I appreciate your work in breaking it down step by step - let me just respond to a couple steps where I think the argument does off track.

This text is now purple: 4. In part because of #3, the group itself maintains the rights possessed by its component parts. i.e. The group can be treated as a single person, with the rights of a single person.


This is true in some sense, but not in others. Firstly, there are some rights that we all agree we *could* grant to groups if we wanted to, but we don't for various reasons - for example, voting. We don't give groups the right to vote independent of their members right to vote. I'd need some convincing that we need to grant religious protections to groups independent of their members rights as well.

Secondly, groups may be made up of a heterogeneous array of individuals. How do you know what attributes of the individuals to ascribe to the group? I'm not saying groups have no rights, but its not at all clear to me they keep *all* rights.

This text is now purple: 5. A corporation is an entity made up of a group of people.


This is false. This is not - very definitely not - what a corporation is. A corporation is an independent legal entity. It need not even be made up of people at all, and it surely is something distinct from the individuals who own its equity. If what you're saying was true, the idea of limited liability would go out the window.

Don't confuse "people can have ownership stakes in a corporation" with "corporations are made up of people".
 
2013-11-26 05:25:31 PM

flucto: someonelse: Why is the scope of this case limited to contraceptives? People (and therefore corporations which are people my friend) also have religious objections to all kinds of things, like chemotherapy, antibiotics, antidepressants, transfusions, etc. Why can't employers be exempted from covering those things if they object to them? Why just contraceptives?

Things doctors prescribe vs. elective things?


 Doctors prescribe contraceptives for women who don't want to become pregnant. They prescribe antidepressants for people who don't want to be depressed. They prescribe antibiotics for people who don't want to be dead from cutting their foot on the beach. You have not offered a reasonable distinction between contraception and other medical treatments that people have religious objections to.
 
2013-11-26 05:25:48 PM

someonelse: Why just contraceptives?


Because men have to control what the pussy does. A woman knows intimately that a child is hers; a man has to go on faith and promises. The only way to control patrimony is to control the pussy. And the best way to do that is keep it pregnant and home away from other men.

That's basically what all this boils down to. Insecure men wanting to ensure patrimony by coercion and force.
 
2013-11-26 05:25:48 PM

ciberido: BravadoGT:In as much as it's the same standard as other civil law cases--yes.  You file a lawsuit for anything, and a court will review it.  You can allege that your neighbor is from mars and ate all your crabgrass and now owes you $3300 in gold bars, and a court will review the case for merit before kicking you to the curb.  Every time.

No, not crabgrass, silly person.  Your neighbor from Mars eats cars:  Cadillacs, Lincolns too,Mercuries, and Subarus.  And he doesn't stop, he keeps on eatin' cars. Then, when there's no more cars, he goes at night and eats up bars where the people meet.


GET OUTTA MAH HEAD!
 
2013-11-26 05:25:54 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: I see something wrong with the government requiring an employer to provide a company car, or all expenses paid vacations.


As a policy choice that's fine, but the constitutionality of this has been settled for now.
 
2013-11-26 05:26:47 PM

dj_bigbird: swaniefrmreddeer: This won't end well if the SCOTUS allows the companies to deny contraception. The JW plan will not include blood transfusions, the christian scientists plan will include only prayer.

They're not "denying contraception" - the employer would simply not have to pay for it. The employees would still be free to go out into the real world and pay for it on their own.


This.

My company is denying me my right to own a Lamborghini.  How do I force them to stop making decisions about what I can drive?
 
2013-11-26 05:28:21 PM

DamnYankees: This text is now purple: DamnYankees: Qellaqan: My read is that they said, 'yes, that is unfair', and made it 'fair'

You're making my point. Judges don't make rulings based on what's "fair" in the abstract. If you want to declare something as unconstitutional, you need to point to something in the actual constitution. "Fairness" as a general concept isn't in there. That's why its horrible judging.

You can reach the VRA conclusion from Shelby using the same logic and basis as Brown v. Board.

How so? Given the opinion in Shelby never even cited Brown, this is an odd claim to me.


Specifically calling out voting districts is an abridgement of equal protections under the law. Basically, from this, "fair" can be derived.
 
2013-11-26 05:28:37 PM

koder: 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.

Amen. Now, next time someone dies from food poisoning, I say freeze McDonald's assets for the same period as a person would be sentenced for negligent homicide.

Do that and corporate personhood rocks. :D


I'm intrigued by this corporate personhood idea that is thrown about fark so frequently. If corporations should be treated exactly like people, can I set up 1,000 new corps that each get a vote in elections? Will they be counted in the census, affecting govt spending and redistricting and house rep allocation? Since they won't do anything or earn any money, can they apply for govt benefits? Because I'd dividend them all to me, the owner. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal.
 
2013-11-26 05:29:36 PM

This text is now purple: Specifically calling out voting districts is an abridgement of equal protections under the law. Basically, from this, "fair" can be derived.


Again, there's a reason why the opinion (if you read it) doesn't actually make this claim. That's because equal protection applies to people, not political entities. There's no rule that you need to treat all political entities equally - that would be a pretty absurd idea if you think about it.
 
2013-11-26 05:29:48 PM
Question that has never occurred to Subby

Why are employers saddled with providing Health Insurance to employees (sorry, workers)? How did this get to be their problem? Are employers required to provide Automobile financing? Home or Renters insurance? Breast implants? How about Microwaves? Inflatable kiddie pools? Why aren't Employers required to provide group coverage of Flood Insurance, or Kid's All Purpose Full Time Helmets, suitable for bathroom wear all the way through to Formal Wear? Why aren't Employers required to provide the latest PCs or Macs? Bio-chip implants for Google Glasses? Why am I required to pay for your health choices? Do you want to pay for mine, because mine are f*cking legendary.

Why is the cost of elective plastic surgery falling? Market Conditions.
Why is the cost of elective eye surgery falling ? Market Conditions
Why is the cost of flat screen televisions falling? Market Conditions

Cost of health care? Like an Atlas Booster lift-off. Know why subby?

Can't guess?

Disconnect from Market Conditions into  some other guy is going to pay for it.

You wanna be That Guy who advocates for screwing  everybody, Subs?
 
2013-11-26 05:30:02 PM

someonelse: Doctors prescribe contraceptives for women who don't want to become pregnant. They prescribe antidepressants for people who don't want to be depressed. They prescribe antibiotics for people who don't want to be dead from cutting their foot on the beach. You have not offered a reasonable distinction between contraception and other medical treatments that people have religious objections to.


My point is pretty clear: prescribed vs over the counte. No employer should be opine about that which is prescribed. A prescribed sterilization for medical reasons: covered. Elective? eh.
 
2013-11-26 05:30:58 PM

pedrop357: dj_bigbird: swaniefrmreddeer: This won't end well if the SCOTUS allows the companies to deny contraception. The JW plan will not include blood transfusions, the christian scientists plan will include only prayer.

They're not "denying contraception" - the employer would simply not have to pay for it. The employees would still be free to go out into the real world and pay for it on their own.

This.

My company is denying me my right to own a Lamborghini.  How do I force them to stop making decisions about what I can drive?


Your argument boils down to the idea that if you cannot pay the price for treatment on the open market, you cannot have it. And your argument is not limited to contraception. It logically applies to anything the employer wants it to, including life-saving procedures.
 
2013-11-26 05:31:12 PM
Corporations can be sold.
People can not be sold.
Therefore, Corporations are not people or Wall Street is engaged in the slave trade.
 
2013-11-26 05:31:31 PM
When the medical people start forcing contraception onto the catholic and then forcing them to have sex purely for fun then at that point I will accept that their religion is under attack and they are having their religious freedom curtailed.

As long as you have ability to make the personal choice to put the condom on or take the pill you still have your freedom in that area.

These people want the choice removed in the way they want. `religious freedom` is not forcing everyone else to do what you want you farktards.
 
2013-11-26 05:31:39 PM

Shryke: Headso: The easy way to resolve it is for hobby lobby to follow the law

Says every tyrant, ever.


images.encyclopediadramatica.es
 
2013-11-26 05:32:10 PM

DamnYankees: This is true in some sense, but not in others. Firstly, there are some rights that we all agree we *could* grant to groups if we wanted to, but we don't for various reasons - for example, voting. We don't give groups the right to vote independent of their members right to vote. I'd need some convincing that we need to grant religious protections to groups independent of their members rights as well.


Citizens United has already done that. A corporation has its 1st Amendment rights, which includes its right to a free exercise of religion.
 
2013-11-26 05:33:20 PM

someonelse: pedrop357: dj_bigbird: swaniefrmreddeer: This won't end well if the SCOTUS allows the companies to deny contraception. The JW plan will not include blood transfusions, the christian scientists plan will include only prayer.

They're not "denying contraception" - the employer would simply not have to pay for it. The employees would still be free to go out into the real world and pay for it on their own.

This.

My company is denying me my right to own a Lamborghini.  How do I force them to stop making decisions about what I can drive?

Your argument boils down to the idea that if you cannot pay the price for treatment on the open market, you cannot have it. And your argument is not limited to contraception. It logically applies to anything the employer wants it to, including life-saving procedures.


It was sarcasm aimed at this idea that if your employer doesn't pay for something, they are denying it to you and/or it's tantamount to them forbidding from you from doing it.
 
2013-11-26 05:34:03 PM

DamnYankees: This text is now purple: 5. A corporation is an entity made up of a group of people.

This is false. This is not - very definitely not - what a corporation is. A corporation is an independent legal entity. It need not even be made up of people at all, and it surely is something distinct from the individuals who own its equity. If what you're saying was true, the idea of limited liability would go out the window.

Don't confuse "people can have ownership stakes in a corporation" with "corporations are made up of people".


This wasn't a legal statement; it's a statement of fact.

If you revoke a corporate charter, the corporation devolves into its fundamental state of a group of assembled people with like purpose.
 
2013-11-26 05:34:20 PM

TheWhoppah: Corporations can be sold.
People can not be sold.
Therefore, Corporations are not people or Wall Street is engaged in the slave trade.


People can be sold and they are sold every day. Wall street is slavery as much as when you go to work and do work for your boss you are a slave at that point.

Good day sir.
 
2013-11-26 05:34:54 PM

This text is now purple: DamnYankees: This is true in some sense, but not in others. Firstly, there are some rights that we all agree we *could* grant to groups if we wanted to, but we don't for various reasons - for example, voting. We don't give groups the right to vote independent of their members right to vote. I'd need some convincing that we need to grant religious protections to groups independent of their members rights as well.

Citizens United has already done that. A corporation has its 1st Amendment rights, which includes its right to a free exercise of religion.


The PEOPLE who make up that corporation do not give up their First Amendment protected rights simply because they choose to work together.

If corporations don't have rights, can their bank accounts be pilfered at will andtheir buildings and vehicles searched without probable cause?
 
2013-11-26 05:34:56 PM
The real issue here is that the employer knows every single thing covered under the plan.  That is not the way it should be.  It should say gynecological services and it ends there otherwise you basically have employers making health decisions like this by proxy of what a plan offers.  It's bad enough insurers get a say.  If this is allowed just say screw it because every corp out there will become part of The Bible Readers Fellowship the next day.
 
2013-11-26 05:35:04 PM

Novart: Coastalgrl: Novart: Coastal

Never said the man or the party was perfect.

Given a choice between someone listening in on my phone conversation vs being forced to breed, I'll take the spying.

No spying is wrong and I can't stand it. But if I get knocked up due to rape, guess what, I'll drive to wherever I need to and take whatever pill I need to get rid of it.

Also, I have no party affiliation. I refuse based on principle.

That's good, but only one of those things is actually happening.

If corporations/Republican lawmakers did provide an exception for rape (or incest), would you be ok with not getting free contraceptives?


No, because I use them to regulate my cycle. Without it I would bleed at random times. Also, I would like to engage in sexual activity and have the pill contraceptive as a back up. Abortion should not be used as a method of contraception. Its been nearly a decade for me but just in case I ever want to.

Waay too TMI
 
2013-11-26 05:36:23 PM
More importantly, does God consider corporations to be people?
 
2013-11-26 05:36:35 PM

This text is now purple: If you revoke a corporate charter, the corporation devolves into its fundamental state of a group of assembled people with like purpose.


That's not true. Like, factually, its not true. If you dissolve a corporation, there's no 'assembled group of people' left over at all. The corporation just ceases to exist.

You can't make a factual statement about what a corporation is without it being, by definition, a legal statement. Corporations are legally created entitles - everything about them is legal in nature.

And I noticed you didn't respond to my other points about attributing rights to groups which are held by its members.
 
2013-11-26 05:36:48 PM

flucto: someonelse: Doctors prescribe contraceptives for women who don't want to become pregnant. They prescribe antidepressants for people who don't want to be depressed. They prescribe antibiotics for people who don't want to be dead from cutting their foot on the beach. You have not offered a reasonable distinction between contraception and other medical treatments that people have religious objections to.

My point is pretty clear: prescribed vs over the counte. No employer should be opine about that which is prescribed. A prescribed sterilization for medical reasons: covered. Elective? eh.


You are oversimplifying. What about antidepressants or anti-anxiety medications? Are they elective? If I have religious objections to them, why should I be compelled to offer coverage that includes them? What about joint replacement? Elective or no? I can function by hobbling around, after all. I don't technically need a new knee to survive, but I may elect to get one.
 
2013-11-26 05:36:57 PM

Farking Canuck: Shryke: Farking Canuck: I did not say that religion was not protected.

Just that religious people were delusional and worse. Oh what a difference.

Well those are your words. But I am certainly not going to argue with you.


It's an odd day indeed when I find myself siding with  Farking Canuck in a thread.  I'm gonna need more popcorn.  And probably some bourbon.
 
2013-11-26 05:37:47 PM

This text is now purple: Citizens United has already done that. A corporation has its 1st Amendment rights, which includes its right to a free exercise of religion.


Which is why that court decision is an abomination, just logically speaking.
 
2013-11-26 05:39:03 PM

This text is now purple: DamnYankees: This is true in some sense, but not in others. Firstly, there are some rights that we all agree we *could* grant to groups if we wanted to, but we don't for various reasons - for example, voting. We don't give groups the right to vote independent of their members right to vote. I'd need some convincing that we need to grant religious protections to groups independent of their members rights as well.

Citizens United has already done that. A corporation has its 1st Amendment rights, which includes its right to a free exercise of religion.


Of course but within the confines of the law. Just because the bible has the price of a slave and instructions on how to treat your slaves does not mean that you can bypass the law and keep slaves and say `religious freedom`. You can`t stone people either.

Same concept. What employment law states in this case would supersedes religion.
 
2013-11-26 05:39:05 PM
The laws surrounding insurance and employers should be dissolved with the intent of allowing people to buy health insurance the way they do auto, home, renters,etc.

Get rid of the tax breaks employers get, OR extend it to individual payers.  Allow people to choose what services they wish to purchase.  Allow companies to sell plans across state lines.

The idea that insurance is even loosely coupled to employment is an idea who's time has LONG past.  It came to be as a reaction to another series of bad ideas by the government.  Seriously, look up how this crap came to be.
 
2013-11-26 05:40:44 PM

someonelse: You are oversimplifying. What about antidepressants or anti-anxiety medications? Are they elective? If I have religious objections to them, why should I be compelled to offer coverage that includes them? What about joint replacement? Elective or no? I can function by hobbling around, after all. I don't technically need a new knee to survive, but I may elect to get one.


I am not over simplifying. Insurance companies continually make coverage decisions based on medical need. No doctor prescribes antidepressants for jollies. You are willfully clouding what is a very simple dividing line: medically necessary vs. elective. Employers' desires should not be a factor in all that which is medically necessary.
 
2013-11-26 05:42:10 PM
1. People have rights.
2. People are assembled out of various parts: human arms, human legs, human organs, etc.
3. Human parts share the rights of the whole, ie: a law that criminalizes using a body part for making sounds would violate the person's right to free speech.
4. Brain can authorize removal of tonsils but it is illegal to sell your extra kidney on eBay.
5. Lists are dumb.
 
2013-11-26 05:42:16 PM

pedrop357: The laws surrounding insurance and employers should be dissolved with the intent of allowing people to buy health insurance the way they do auto, home, renters,etc.

Get rid of the tax breaks employers get, OR extend it to individual payers.  Allow people to choose what services they wish to purchase.  Allow companies to sell plans across state lines.

The idea that insurance is even loosely coupled to employment is an idea who's time has LONG past.  It came to be as a reaction to another series of bad ideas by the government.  Seriously, look up how this crap came to be.


What deductions do they get other than a straight deduction for an expense, like salary or rent or electricity or interest? Is there something more nuanced?
 
2013-11-26 05:42:59 PM

Warlordtrooper: If they allow this then you can call anything a religious belief. Don want to pay taxes? Against my religion. Don't want to serve black people just claim its against your religion. This precedent will allow anyone to ignore any law they please if they just claim a religious belief


My religion requires me to rape random strangers every once in a while. WHY ARE YOU INFRINGING ON MY RELIGION?!?
 
2013-11-26 05:43:45 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: pedrop357: The laws surrounding insurance and employers should be dissolved with the intent of allowing people to buy health insurance the way they do auto, home, renters,etc.

Get rid of the tax breaks employers get, OR extend it to individual payers.  Allow people to choose what services they wish to purchase.  Allow companies to sell plans across state lines.

The idea that insurance is even loosely coupled to employment is an idea who's time has LONG past.  It came to be as a reaction to another series of bad ideas by the government.  Seriously, look up how this crap came to be.

What deductions do they get other than a straight deduction for an expense, like salary or rent or electricity or interest? Is there something more nuanced?


Employers get to deduct their part of the premiums.  This gives them an advantage in that they can provide insurance to you cheaper than you can.  A person who has/had COBRA could not deduct the same premiums.
 
2013-11-26 05:45:20 PM

someonelse: pedrop357: dj_bigbird: swaniefrmreddeer: This won't end well if the SCOTUS allows the companies to deny contraception. The JW plan will not include blood transfusions, the christian scientists plan will include only prayer.

They're not "denying contraception" - the employer would simply not have to pay for it. The employees would still be free to go out into the real world and pay for it on their own.

This.

My company is denying me my right to own a Lamborghini.  How do I force them to stop making decisions about what I can drive?

Your argument boils down to the idea that if you cannot pay the price for treatment on the open market, you cannot have it. And your argument is not limited to contraception. It logically applies to anything the employer wants it to, including life-saving procedures.


Since no one else seems to be stating the obvious I'll just point out that no one wants to require the government to force companies to  buy everyone a Lamborghini  and no one wants companies to have the ability to kill their employees at will.  Exactly how much government regulation vs personal freedom we get will be some where in the middle and the courts exist to determine where the line is drawn. Arguing that we can only have one extreme or the other is just stupid.
 
2013-11-26 05:47:49 PM
This is an insane concept.  While I generally like the freedom to have employers and employees negotiate on their own without government interference, I can see all sorts of instant religious people looking to game a system that allowed exceptions for religious purposes.

My religion requires that I not provide any benefits to my employees at all.
 
2013-11-26 05:47:52 PM

ZzeusS: OK, well.  Your company's religion required contraception.

Mine requires insemination.

You don't like it?  Too bad for you.  Assume the position.



static1.wikia.nocookie.net
I am programmed for your pleasure.
 
2013-11-26 05:49:11 PM

Ker_Thwap: This is an insane concept.  While I generally like the freedom to have employers and employees negotiate on their own without government interference, I can see all sorts of instant religious people looking to game a system that allowed exceptions for religious purposes.

My religion requires that I not provide any benefits to my employees at all.


Works for me.

Don't expect to have a high caliber of employees.
 
2013-11-26 05:50:20 PM

flucto: someonelse: Why is the scope of this case limited to contraceptives? People (and therefore corporations which are people my friend) also have religious objections to all kinds of things, like chemotherapy, antibiotics, antidepressants, transfusions, etc. Why can't employers be exempted from covering those things if they object to them? Why just contraceptives?

Things doctors prescribe vs. elective things?


So if a doctor prescribes BC then it should be covered? Thanks!
 
2013-11-26 05:52:22 PM
If the insurance peeps went away and single payer arrived, well...
 
2013-11-26 05:54:03 PM
Religion is no silver bullet when it comes to the law... just ask a Rastafarian about it sometime.
www.cannabisculture.com
 
2013-11-26 05:54:43 PM

doofusss: If the insurance peeps went away and single payer arrived, well...


It would get even worse?
 
2013-11-26 05:56:20 PM

pedrop357: doofusss: If the insurance peeps went away and single payer arrived, well...

It would get even worse?


It would? How? How can it get worse than it already is?
 
2013-11-26 05:56:30 PM

flucto: chairmenmeow47: doctors prescribed me birth control so that i am not in so much pain i can't go to work.

Personally I think all prescriptions should be covered. Condoms less so.


Why?
 
2013-11-26 05:57:23 PM

pedrop357: Ker_Thwap: This is an insane concept.  While I generally like the freedom to have employers and employees negotiate on their own without government interference, I can see all sorts of instant religious people looking to game a system that allowed exceptions for religious purposes.

My religion requires that I not provide any benefits to my employees at all.

Works for me.

Don't expect to have a high caliber of employees.


I was being snide... but, as a business decision in some cases you could have basic laborer employees who require minimal training, and low caliber employees might just suit your needs.  My point was that this just opens up specialized religions where you use goofy beliefs to circumvent laws in place.
 
2013-11-26 05:57:30 PM

TheWhoppah: ciberido: Really?  How often does that happen?

Every 15 minutes.
Like Clockwork.
BBBBBAAAARRRKKKK!!!!! You humans will pay for ruining our homeland!! GRRRRRRRR!!!! Family Darkpaw of the Sabretooth Clan will slay you all!! BARK!


Fippy?
 
2013-11-26 05:57:42 PM

pedrop357: Debeo Summa Credo: pedrop357: The laws surrounding insurance and employers should be dissolved with the intent of allowing people to buy health insurance the way they do auto, home, renters,etc.

Get rid of the tax breaks employers get, OR extend it to individual payers.  Allow people to choose what services they wish to purchase.  Allow companies to sell plans across state lines.

The idea that insurance is even loosely coupled to employment is an idea who's time has LONG past.  It came to be as a reaction to another series of bad ideas by the government.  Seriously, look up how this crap came to be.

What deductions do they get other than a straight deduction for an expense, like salary or rent or electricity or interest? Is there something more nuanced?

Employers get to deduct their part of the premiums.  This gives them an advantage in that they can provide insurance to you cheaper than you can.  A person who has/had COBRA could not deduct the same premiums.


yes, they get to deduct their premiums paid for employee health insurance. It's a business expense like salary or rent.

That isn't unusual or a loophole or whatever in any way.
 
2013-11-26 05:58:39 PM

microlith: It would? How? How can it get worse than it already is?



Adding several layers of highly incompetent bureaucracy to the process would improve it?
 
2013-11-26 05:59:04 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: yes, they get to deduct their premiums paid for employee health insurance. It's a business expense like salary or rent.

That isn't unusual or a loophole or whatever in any way.


The benefit is on the employee side, not the employer side. Health care paid for by your employer is tax-exempt for the employee. That's the incentive.
 
2013-11-26 06:01:07 PM

ciberido: ZzeusS: OK, well.  Your company's religion required contraception.

Mine requires insemination.

You don't like it?  Too bad for you.  Assume the position.


[static1.wikia.nocookie.net image 700x525]
I am programmed for your pleasure.


I noticed how they survived 30 years after the nukes, and can make laundry and do bedding, sort and stack books, but no one can grab a broom.
 
2013-11-26 06:01:13 PM

Shryke: microlith: It would? How? How can it get worse than it already is?


Adding several layers of highly incompetent bureaucracy to the process would improve it?


Presumably we'd be stripping away the greed-driven layers imposed by private insurance companies as a start. But I guess you're arguing in defense of good 'ol American Incompetence, since it seems to work in other countries.
 
2013-11-26 06:01:41 PM
People taking care of each other shouldn't be a business.
 
2013-11-26 06:02:28 PM

DamnYankees: Debeo Summa Credo: yes, they get to deduct their premiums paid for employee health insurance. It's a business expense like salary or rent.

That isn't unusual or a loophole or whatever in any way.

The benefit is on the employee side, not the employer side. Health care paid for by your employer is tax-exempt for the employee. That's the incentive.


Ah, yes, of course. Shame on me for forgetting that.

Thanks.
 
2013-11-26 06:03:35 PM

microlith: greed-driven layers


Capitalism is the source of the wealth you seek to redistribute. Why kill the golden goose?

~~since it seems to work in other countries.

The other countries you speak of endure identical inflation issues with health care costs. Simply spending less does not mean better health care.
 
2013-11-26 06:03:39 PM

DamnYankees: This text is now purple: Specifically calling out voting districts is an abridgement of equal protections under the law. Basically, from this, "fair" can be derived.

Again, there's a reason why the opinion (if you read it) doesn't actually make this claim. That's because equal protection applies to people, not political entities. There's no rule that you need to treat all political entities equally - that would be a pretty absurd idea if you think about it.


How so? The 14th was written specifically to defend groups.

As to the states, they derive some 5th amendment process protections via the 10th.
 
2013-11-26 06:06:22 PM

DamnYankees: This text is now purple: Citizens United has already done that. A corporation has its 1st Amendment rights, which includes its right to a free exercise of religion.

Which is why that court decision is an abomination, just logically speaking.


Is it?

You do realize that about 10 minutes after it gets reversed, conservative states will immediately outlaw labor unions, right? They are legal fictions whose rights derive from the logic behind CU.
 
2013-11-26 06:07:04 PM

This text is now purple: How so? The 14th was written specifically to defend groups.


No its not. Read the equal protection clause - it is explicitly about "citizens" and "persons":

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
2013-11-26 06:07:21 PM
Why don't we just provide everyone with the exact same basic care plan, and if you would like additional coverages you can buy them yourself
 
2013-11-26 06:07:40 PM

This text is now purple: You do realize that about 10 minutes after it gets reversed, conservative states will immediately outlaw labor unions, right?


I don't think you know what Citizens United did.
 
2013-11-26 06:12:09 PM

debug: Why?


Condoms, gym memberships, vitamins, vegetables, yoga, vacations: all healthy. None are "health care" per se. There has to be a line, surely? I like "medically necessary"
 
2013-11-26 06:15:16 PM

Shryke: microlith: greed-driven layers

Capitalism is the source of the wealth you seek to redistribute. Why kill the golden goose?


Nothing has shown capitalism to be of any benefit in handling the costs of medicine. As has been noted many times, our per-capita expenditures on healthcare exceed other nations significantly, have generally worse outcomes, and leave more people completely without. Capitalism is not perfect, nor a solution for all things.

~~since it seems to work in other countries.

The other countries you speak of endure identical inflation issues with health care costs. Simply spending less does not mean better health care.


They have distantly similar, not identical issues. Costs go up, but not at the rate they do in the US. As I noted, they spend less on average and don't have people who live completely without insurance or go broke as a result of having received care.
 
2013-11-26 06:15:36 PM

Shryke: Pitabred: Sure. Just because you say so? You're asserting I'm in the position to be contributing millions of dollars to the hospital/drug company/etc. to pay for my cancer treatments to make up for my use of the system?

All cancer treatments cost millions of dollars? shiat, if you are going to belt out the bullshiat, why not go for billions of dollars? Or trillions? Gorillions!

So... let them die? fark the poor, sick and disabled, they had it coming to them? Damn. Nice to know you're a sociopath, and so labeled.

This is very tired, and childish, argument. Everyone in the world dies, Bleedingheartbred. Let's turn this argument around, as you seem so very concerned: should the government pay for a dual lung transplant for my grandmother, who is 97, and then indenture you for the cost of it? Do you feel that is just, and a wise policy? I expect huge amounts of leftist compassion in your reply, don't disappoint me.


Ok, so your end argument is, if you are wealthy enough to pay for your life, you get to continue to live, right?  And if you're poor, well, tough shiat pal/gal, you get to work until you drop over dead or are thrown on the streets, because freedom?

And any doctor that would do a lung transplant on someone at 97 years old is either a quack trying to make a quick buck, or certifiably insane.  And you know damn well it would never happen.  But nice strawman argument.
 
2013-11-26 06:29:17 PM

AurizenDarkstar: you get to continue to live, right? And if you're poor, well, tough shiat pal/gal


Yes. Paying for services you want means exactly that. Your argument extends to utilities, groceries, etc. Those should be "free" too, yes?

~~And any doctor that would do a lung transplant on someone at 97 years old

Wisdom from our betters, eh? So a man that can pay for it should just go pound salt? What other 5 year plans do you have for us, comrade?
 
2013-11-26 06:30:51 PM

microlith: Nothing has shown capitalism to be of any benefit in handling the costs of medicine


Outrageously false. The nearest system we have to capitalistic health care also produces more than HALF of medical research and more than 60% of all medical innovation on the PLANET.

~~not identical issues.

I said identical inflation rates. And they do.
 
2013-11-26 06:40:50 PM

Shryke: AurizenDarkstar: you get to continue to live, right? And if you're poor, well, tough shiat pal/gal

Yes. Paying for services you want means exactly that. Your argument extends to utilities, groceries, etc. Those should be "free" too, yes?


Ah, deflecting from your asinine statement by making a completely different argument.  Insurance allows people to be able to 'pay' for not only doctor's visits, but for any life threatening illnesses they may end up with.  How is that like paying utilities or for food?  Are we now required to have insurance to cover those costs as well?

Shryke: ~~And any doctor that would do a lung transplant on someone at 97 years old

Wisdom from our betters, eh? So a man that can pay for it should just go pound salt? What other 5 year plans do you have for us, comrade?


Your second asinine comment proves you know nothing about medicine and how decisions to use it are made.  So why should I say anything other than that you made a strawman argument.  And the best you can do is follow up with another strawman?  You really better step up your bullshiat, otherwise I'm sure Drew won't give you that raise you've been angling for.
 
2013-11-26 06:45:41 PM

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: 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."


Fine I'll bite.  There is a medical condition called pregnancy which can be quite difficult on your health, the prevention of which is a legitimate medical concern for quite a few people.  After my brother was born, for example, my mom was advised by her doctor not to get pregnant again because the complications that resulted from that pregnancy would have made any subsequent pregnancies extremely risky.  How women deal with the fact that they can become pregnant is in fact a health decision.  Her employer (which I believe has already been established as a separate legal entity from the owners of the company and therefore their religious beliefs don't matter) does not get to make that decision for her by arbitrarily deciding which medications are for realsies, and which ones are slut-enablers.
 
2013-11-26 07:15:16 PM

Headso: Mr. Right: Employers should be prohibited from offering health insurance to their employees; individuals should be encouraged (if not mandated) to set up HSAs when they are young and maintain them and that should be the norm for health insurance.  At that point, you can take your risk pools and place them where a colonoscopy would be required to find them.

Citizens should just have a certain level of coverage no HSA required then if you want additional or better coverage you can purchase it. What you advocate puts more of the burden on the middle class and poor.


Actually, the pre-ACA system penalized middle and lower income people and ACA is only going to exacerbate that situation.

When an employer pays for insurance, the employee needs to be productive enough that the employer can bill customers, one way or another, to cover all costs of employment.   If you take a factory worker with a good insurance plan, his premiums are going to be a minimum of $1000/month.  That's $12,000/year or about $6/hour for a FTE.  That's $6/hour that the employee has absolutely no chance of ever seeing (even though he earned it) unless he gets sick and with most insurance plans he'll still have copays and deductibles for every visit, every prescription.  So whether he sees it or not, he pays a minimum of $12,000/year plus his copays for every visit and prescription.  If he's remarkably healthy, it costs him $12.000/year.  If he's sickly, it costs him more.  No matter how healthy he is, it still costs him $12.000/year minimum.

We've had an HSA for more than 15 years.  Our premiums this year were just over $300/month with a $7500 deductible.  A small (negligible) portion of the premium goes into the HSA but we can put as much as we want into it pre-tax.  If we're remarkably healthy, our total cost is a bit over $3600/year.  Whatever we've been smart enough to put into the HSA is ours, not the insurance company's.  If something terrible happens and we meet the deductible, our maximum cost is $11,100 because once we meet the deductible all expenses including prescriptions are covered - no copays.  Because we've had the great good fortune of being pretty darned healthy all our lives, we've managed to lay by a fair amount of money in the HSA.  At the point that we are forced into Medicare, we can use that money to buy supplemental or anything else we want.

But even if we had been unhealthy or had a chronic condition we would not have spent as much as a standard policy.  Consider a good friend of mine who has a couple of chronic conditions but the same health insurance policy.  He meets his deductible every year.  I know that my (and others') "unused" premiums cover his expenses for usually the last few months of the year.  I don't have a problem with that.  What I know is that he is able to afford all the health care he and his wife require without going bankrupt on copays, deductibles, percentage splits, or maximum coverages.  My bottom line point is that an HSA arrangement favors the middle class as a whole because the middle class, as a whole, is relatively healthy and could, over most working careers, save a bundle of money that they can spend wantonly upon retirement or even pass on to their heirs.  But you look at teachers, union workers, or any other middle class folks with good insurance coverage, they do not have the opportunity to keep any of their health insurance dollars.  Those "Cadillac" premiums go straight to the insurance company and they aren't coming back.  Additionally, having the large deductible that I have makes me a much more conscientious consumer.  I negotiate prices with doctors and other service providers.  I had a minor problem this year, went to see the doctor and he gave me a prescription.  Went to the pharmacist (a friend of mine) and he allowed as how this prescription was going to be $1600!   Knowing my insurance plan, he wanted to make sure I knew what it cost before he special ordered it.  I got on the phone to the doctor immediately and told him that I wasn't in favor of writing a check for that amount of money for a  handful of pills and asked if there was an alternative that didn't have so many zeroes behind it.  He, being a specialist I'd never dealt with before, apologized profusely and rewrote the prescription for another drug that was just as effective (but wasn't brand new and probably didn't give him a kickback or at least hadn't brought in a lavish lunch for him and his entire practice) and cost the grand sum of $79.  Anybody with a full-coverage plan and a small copay would not have brought up the subject.

Those great health insurance plans penalize the middle class, not benefit them.
 
2013-11-26 07:23:44 PM

Shryke: Outrageously false. The nearest system we have to capitalistic health care also produces more than HALF of medical research and more than 60% of all medical innovation on the PLANET.


Which has nothing to do with the COSTS OF TREATMENT. Get back to me when R&D budgets at pharmaceutical corps are greater than their marketing budgets, instead of screwing US patients so as to better market to them. Seeing your other argument I'm disinclined to continue arguing this, that you would willingly claim that people should die of preventable, treatable illnesses simply because they can't afford to is sociopathic to a disgusting degree.

~~not identical issues.

I said identical inflation rates. And they do.


Care to support your argument, or is it just "it is because I said so" for you?
 
2013-11-26 07:26:57 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Headso: yep my bad, you think the owners of hobby lobby are buying their employees insurance with their own personal money not that the hobby lobby has emotions.

They own the business, they have the say just as you do in your business.

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Paying a living wage and not working someone to death

If you don't like your pay and you don't like your hours, you are not forced by anyone to work there. Nor should you be forced to work there. Or do anything against your will for that matter.

Hobodeluxe: well what exactly is their standing for filing this suit?
how does it harm them other than their feelings?
why does it matter to them if their employees' insurance covers contraceptives?

Why does it matter to you?

Hobodeluxe: it's not them purchasing them. the employees are.
that money they give the insurance company is actually their employee's deferred compensation.
The employees are actually purchasing the plan.
All the company is doing is getting them a discount.

So how about this? They have no company insurance and they choose to buy their own insurance that will cover whatever their little hearts desire. Better yet they can make the choice to go to work elsewhere that offers them something more attractive. You're hiring aren't you? $20/hour plus full benes too I'm sure.


fine as long as they give me what they were giving the insurance company for my plan.
also why does it matter to me? why does it matter to them what their employees do with their own damn money. it's not the company's money. it's the employees'
 
2013-11-26 07:30:57 PM
I knew this thread would be full of fail.

1. Employers are not obligated to provide health coverage to any employees. However, beginning in 2014, employers with more than 50 full-time employees that do not offer coverage will have to pay a penalty of $2,000 per full-time equivalent employee for all full-time employees in excess of 30 if even one employee receives a federal government subsidy and purchases coverage in an exchange. This is, I assume, to prevent most employers from just ending all insurance coverage and forcing their employees into the "marketplace."
2. The federal government doesn't tax health insurance when employers provide it to their employees as part of a compensation package. This tax expenditure is the largest "loophole" in the federal tax code, resulting in nearly $300 billion in forgone revenue in FY2012, according to the Office of Management and Budget.
3. What Hobby Lobby and others are claiming is that requiring them to pay for insurance that includes contraception is a violation of their religious beliefs.  They could solve this by not providing insurance for any employees. But they don't want to do that. They want a religious exception to the rules. Even though they are not religious organizations. Their primary purpose is commerce, not religion.
4. Some people here have suggested that what Hobby Lobby objects to is "abortifacients." In fact, Hobby Lobby claims to be offended by ALL contraceptives. Just in case anybody thought their objection was based on actual reasonable motives. It is not. It is based on a stupid prejudice about controlling ladyparts, pretty much from the same stupid place religious nutjobs get their anti-gay shiat from.
5. Most of this bullshiat could have been avoided if we'd just gone with single payer. But because insurance companies are giant, greedy entities and the person who "helped" write the ACA was a health insurance lobbyist before the legislation was passed, and now works for Johnson & Johnson as a lobbyist, we're stuck with this clusterfark.
 
2013-11-26 07:32:42 PM
But you're OK with the gubmint and Father Obama forcing reproductive choices on those against it?
 
2013-11-26 07:47:55 PM

Mean Daddy: But you're OK with the gubmint and Father Obama forcing reproductive choices on those against it?


Your sentence makes no sense.
 
2013-11-26 07:55:39 PM

cannotsuggestaname: Ok I am going to form a religion that requires contraception and medical services, then I will suggest my flock finds employment with companies like Hobby Lobby. What happens when you have conflicting religious requirements to be met? Does the corporation win or do the people?


Difficulty: Hobby Lobby is fairly well documented to be run by dominionists (and in fact, NAR-linked dominionists) who use the business as a funding front for "Prosperity Gospel" groups and which is known to have engaged in discriminatory hiring practices.

Not kidding on this, either.  The company has a documented history of firing not only non-Christians but non-dominionists, is probably one of the two largest corporate sponsors of the (almost completely NARasitised and heavily peddling of the Prosperity Gospel bunk) Assemblies of God along with three separate uplines of Amway, and pretty much the only reason that Oral Roberts University didn't shut down in light of a massive embezzlement scandal related to six televangelists on the board of directors is on account Hobby Lobby gave a massive injection of cash.

Not only that, but they're probably the largest corporate funder of David Barton's "Wallbuilders" (a nasty NARasite group that promotes what can be best described as a pro-dominionist American Historical Revisionism that essentially posits the intent of the Founding Fathers as setting up a theocracy a la Bioshock: Infinite) and there's even evidence they're a corporate sponsor (via Assemblies linkage) of not one but two groups that have engaged in bona fide dominionist terrorism (the Army of God via a group called Summit Ministries, and the genocidal regime of Efrain Rios Montt and his present supporters in Guatemala; the latter has been recently shown to have been very strongly religiously-motivated genocide, with "Pope Francis-style" Liberation Theology Catholics and indigenous Mayans practicing traditional religion explicitly being targeted on basis of these groups not being dominionist)

Suffice it to say that anyone who is openly antidominionist or even seeming to be potentially dominionist-unfriendly tends to get fired VERY quickly and certainly does NOT make it to levels of employment where benefits packages tend to be given out.

/Hobby Lobby is on a personal list of companies I will never, ever, ever willingly or otherwise do business with (and yes, Amway and Chick-Fil-A are also on that list, for similar reasons)
 
2013-11-26 07:56:49 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.


And that would be the shortest brief in SCOTUS history.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-11-26 08:10:16 PM

Mean Daddy: But you're OK with the gubmint and Father Obama forcing reproductive choices on those against it?


You do realise, don't you, that if you're somehow morally against certain rules and laws that one MUST follow if they own a corporation that they are free to NOT own a corporation, right?

You want take advantage of the vast and growing privileges one gets by owning parts or all of a corporation you sure as hell better be willing to accept the rules.  I know the massive hordes of whining corporate execs and corporate worshipers won't agree with me... still.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-11-26 08:14:11 PM

ukexpat: 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.

And that would be the shortest brief in SCOTUS history.


This SCOTUS is willing to do any mental gymnastics needed to make sure their buddies in the corporate world get everything their way.

Corporations should NOT be called "persons."  They should have enumerated and limited legal rights for their protection that are considered lower in priority than the rights of individuals.  We desperately need a constitutional amendment that says this since SCOTUS let the idea of limited corporate rights get screwed up to this extent.  But good luck with today's paid off legislators...
 
2013-11-26 08:17:58 PM

d23: Mean Daddy: But you're OK with the gubmint and Father Obama forcing reproductive choices on those against it?

You do realise, don't you, that if you're somehow morally against certain rules and laws that one MUST follow if they own a corporation that they are free to NOT own a corporation, right?

You want take advantage of the vast and growing privileges one gets by owning parts or all of a corporation you sure as hell better be willing to accept the rules.  I know the massive hordes of whining corporate execs and corporate worshipers won't agree with me... still.


So it's not ok to argue with the government? You just accept the administrative regulations and like it?
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-11-26 08:23:55 PM

flucto: So it's not ok to argue with the government? You just accept the administrative regulations and like it?


Firstly, if you don't like rules and regulations and organization, then Somalia is for you.

Secondly, there is *no* group of people on the planet that has legislators ears more than corporate executives.  My idiot rep, for instance, doesn't even listen to his constituents, it's all ALEC with him.  So they have plenty of input on the laws... much more than me.  And they biatch more than any group as well.  To say that they have no input is asinine.  If they want to be in the US follow the law.
 
2013-11-26 08:29:22 PM

d23: flucto: So it's not ok to argue with the government? You just accept the administrative regulations and like it?

Firstly, if you don't like rules and regulations and organization, then Somalia is for you.

Secondly, there is *no* group of people on the planet that has legislators ears more than corporate executives.  My idiot rep, for instance, doesn't even listen to his constituents, it's all ALEC with him.  So they have plenty of input on the laws... much more than me.  And they biatch more than any group as well.  To say that they have no input is asinine.  If they want to be in the US follow the law.


DRINK!
 
2013-11-26 08:29:33 PM

d23: Firstly, if you don't like rules and regulations and organization, then Somalia is for you.


Really? When the next Republican administration issues some moronic directive everyone who is opposed can just move to Somalia and forget due process?

"If they want to be in the US follow the law. " - the law includes the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. An administrative ruling issued by HHS does not overshadow that. You're obviously passionate about this but you are misguided as relates to the rights of these companies to challenge the directive of HHS regarding something they've added to the new law. That's how our country is supposed to work.
 
2013-11-26 08:30:56 PM
God's law is clear as is written in the Bible. God's law trumps man's law as these people will find out once it's too late. God is love but He will cast you into Hell if you deny Him.
 
2013-11-26 08:31:32 PM

phrawgh: God's law is clear as is written in the Bible. God's law trumps man's law as these people will find out once it's too late. God is love but He will cast you into Hell if you deny Him.


Shut up.
 
2013-11-26 08:34:17 PM
How can we convince the supreme court that individual people with individual bodys and minds and rights are somehow different from business models used to describe organizations of people and resources into an authoritarian work structure and as a definition for tax purposes are different?  Seems far fetched to me.

\sarcasm off.

The reason rights are so valuable is because they are reserved for individuals.  If you really believe gay marriage taints and undermines "traditional" marriage then you must believe that corporate person-hood taints and undermines individual person-hood.  The difference is that one is a protection of the rights of individuals against the theoretical expense of the many, where corporate person-hood takes everyone and makes them less powerful when compared with their Frankenstein corporate person cousins in real definable money/man-power terms.

Some in the supreme court seem to be  naive children who are unable or unwilling to critically examine what the result of their decisions will be.  Corporate person-hood is a lie on top of a lie.  Don't fall for it.
 
2013-11-26 08:42:14 PM
what if your company decides that it doesn't want you to spend your paycheck on alcohol? or non kosher food? can they issue edicts to their employees to stop doing everything that they might disagree with?
 
2013-11-26 09:02:09 PM

Hobodeluxe: what if your company decides that it doesn't want you to spend your paycheck on alcohol? or non kosher food? can they issue edicts to their employees to stop doing everything that they might disagree with?


They're not issuing edicts here either.  Nothing stops you form buying alcohol, non kosher food, OR contraceptives.

I only want to drink the nicest scotch, why is my company stopping me from buying bottles of 40 year old scotch all the time by not paying for my scotch?
 
2013-11-26 09:19:03 PM

pedrop357: Hobodeluxe: what if your company decides that it doesn't want you to spend your paycheck on alcohol? or non kosher food? can they issue edicts to their employees to stop doing everything that they might disagree with?

They're not issuing edicts here either.  Nothing stops you form buying alcohol, non kosher food, OR contraceptives.

I only want to drink the nicest scotch, why is my company stopping me from buying bottles of 40 year old scotch all the time by not paying for my scotch?


Except that the current health care situation is that if you don't get it from your employer, it's obscenely expensive, and any analogies are pretty fundamentally broken. Imagine if they said you can buy red wine, but they won't offer beer, and beer is $100 for a Coors Light when purchased without the company's aid? That's the problem here - that analogy is pretty accurate but won't resonate because it doesn't make sense that Coors Light would ever be $100. But birth control pills, frequently used for medical maladies unrelated to farking, ARE just like that.
 
2013-11-26 09:22:05 PM

pedrop357: Hobodeluxe: what if your company decides that it doesn't want you to spend your paycheck on alcohol? or non kosher food? can they issue edicts to their employees to stop doing everything that they might disagree with?

They're not issuing edicts here either.  Nothing stops you form buying alcohol, non kosher food, OR contraceptives.

I only want to drink the nicest scotch, why is my company stopping me from buying bottles of 40 year old scotch all the time by not paying for my scotch?


Your job shouldn't have any say in what you do with your remuneration for services performed.  That means it's quite all right if you want to buy 40 year old scotch with your pay, but there is nothing saying that that is part of your remuneration (unless it was agreed to in your work contract).

However, if you are going to argue that an employer should have the right to make decisions for their employees as to how and where they spend their money (which once paid, no longer belongs to the employer), then you are arguing for a return to something like the company store.  Mainly due to if you say a company can decide what an employee does with their money, they can also decide to pay them only in company scrip, with specific instructions and rules on what it can & can't be spent on.

If you really want to go down that road, it basically gives employers almost free reign to live their employees lives for them, once the employee signs a work contract with them.  Now, I hear you say, you can just go to another job!  But the fact is there are very few really well paying jobs out there, so that's a fallacy.  Do you really believe it's in the best interests of the nation to give corporations almost unlimited power over their employees?  I don't.
 
2013-11-26 10:40:16 PM

Hobodeluxe: give me


And if they don't you're going to force them to under the threat of violence. Is this a great country or what?
 
2013-11-26 11:17:12 PM

Headso: PunGent: Mr. Right: The easy way to resolve this is to forbid companies from providing health insurance for employees.  Allow everyone to find and fund their own insurance policy that covers what they want to be covered. A gay man hardly needs to pay for contraception, nor is he terribly interested in paying for mammograms.  A single woman probably isn't too interested in whether her policy covers prostate exams.  Just like groceries, cars, housing, clothing - let each consumer buy what he needs and wants.

Can't happen under current law.  This is one of my biggest beefs against Obamacare (and Romneycare, since I live in Mass.)

The young and healthy can't buy cheap high-deductible catastrophic care policies.  Which is exactly the kind of insurance that makes sense for them.  Well, they CAN buy those policies...they just don't count as coverage.  So they still get fined.

you couldn't buy those scam insurances you talk about even before Romneycare, MA has tough regs on all insurance companies that's why many of the big auto insurance companies are not in MA.


No idea what you're talking about:  catastrophic health care isn't an auto insurance product.
 
2013-11-26 11:19:09 PM

Shryke: PunGent: The young and healthy can't buy cheap high-deductible catastrophic care policies. Which is exactly the kind of insurance that makes sense for them. Well, they CAN buy those policies...they just don't count as coverage. So they still get fined.

Welcome to leftistism. Redistribution to assuage guilt.


Romney's not considered "leftist" by most people, but whatever floats your boat.
 
2013-11-26 11:34:46 PM

flucto: debug: Why?

Condoms, gym memberships, vitamins, vegetables, yoga, vacations: all healthy. None are "health care" per se. There has to be a line, surely? I like "medically necessary"


Birth Control Pills aren't medically necessary either.  Neither is an IUD or any other contraceptive.  So why single out condoms?
 
2013-11-26 11:56:06 PM
Just maybe? it's time to take the insurance issue away from the employer you may want to quit some time down the road (maybe sooner than later) and allow every American equal access to insurance without a penalty imposed because he / she does not work for the richest global corporation.
   By it's nature, insurance should be evenly applied, every human should have equal insurance rights AND costs.  That's why they call it "INSURANCE" that's how it's supposed to work!
WE, as humans are not an expensive car or boat with costs that justify varying rates .  Humans should not be pro-rated like property! we are all equally susceptible to the same illnesses and accidents who ever we work for.
 
2013-11-27 12:16:33 AM

ZzeusS: ciberido: ZzeusS: OK, well.  Your company's religion required contraception.

Mine requires insemination.

You don't like it?  Too bad for you.  Assume the position.


[static1.wikia.nocookie.net image 700x525]
I am programmed for your pleasure.

I noticed how they survived 30 years after the nukes, and can make laundry and do bedding, sort and stack books, but no one can grab a broom.


Brooms were first against the wall when the Revolution came.

Also:
www.vgcats.com
 
2013-11-27 12:20:25 AM

Mean Daddy: But you're OK with the gubmint and Father Obama forcing reproductive choices on those against it?


I'll probably regret responding to this, but what the hell.

In what way, precisely, do you imagine that Obama forces reproductive choices on those against it?
 
2013-11-27 12:27:31 AM

This text is now purple: 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.


media2.onsugar.com
 
2013-11-27 01:02:36 AM

pedrop357: Hobodeluxe: what if your company decides that it doesn't want you to spend your paycheck on alcohol? or non kosher food? can they issue edicts to their employees to stop doing everything that they might disagree with?

They're not issuing edicts here either.  Nothing stops you form buying alcohol, non kosher food, OR contraceptives.

I only want to drink the nicest scotch, why is my company stopping me from buying bottles of 40 year old scotch all the time by not paying for my scotch?


Were you guaranteed scotch in your contract?  No?  Then shut the fark up.

My employment contract includes health coverage.  If they decided to start taking out parts of that coverage because the corporate religion finds it offensive, I would have issues with them.  Legal issues involving a court.
 
2013-11-27 06:42:11 AM
I'm worried about this. There are so many ways giving others the power to force their religious beliefs onto your healthcare will lead to hardship, illness and death.
 
2013-11-27 07:04:17 AM

swaniefrmreddeer: This won't end well if the SCOTUS allows the companies to deny contraception. The JW plan will not include blood transfusions, the christian scientists plan will include only prayer.


And some folks claim that vaccinations are against their religion.
 
2013-11-27 12:49:16 PM

debug: flucto: debug: Why?

Condoms, gym memberships, vitamins, vegetables, yoga, vacations: all healthy. None are "health care" per se. There has to be a line, surely? I like "medically necessary"

Birth Control Pills aren't medically necessary either.  Neither is an IUD or any other contraceptive.  So why single out condoms?


Except they are for certain people, like those with PCOS --  I believe it's also standard treatment for endometriosis as well.  You know, just preventing crippling pain, excessive bleeding, also decreasing risks of certain cancers... Nobody would consider that medically necessary, right?
 
2013-11-27 12:56:34 PM

Onyx Serpent: Nobody would consider that medically necessary, right?


If the doctor convinces the insurance company, fine. Are you pretending that enough people are in that category to extend it to everybody? Because there's a LOT of things that should be covered before that if we're talking about large groups. Veggies, gyms, education. Why doesn't HHS mandate those? Oh yeah, that's not pandering to their constituents.
 
2013-11-27 01:11:09 PM

flucto: Onyx Serpent: Nobody would consider that medically necessary, right?

If the doctor convinces the insurance company, fine. Are you pretending that enough people are in that category to extend it to everybody? Because there's a LOT of things that should be covered before that if we're talking about large groups. Veggies, gyms, education. Why doesn't HHS mandate those? Oh yeah, that's not pandering to their constituents.


Yes there are.  Myself, 3 or 4 of my cousins, my ex roommate, my best friend through high school, a couple of gaming buddies of mine, and that's just off the top of my head.  And I'm pretty much a hermit, so that's a fairly significant sample size, even accounting for genetics.  Not all for the same reason, of course, but they were all put on it (initially, at least) because of medical rather than contraceptive reasons.

Hell, Wikipedia says that 5% - 10% of reproductive-age women may have PCOS (ignoring everything else that BC would treat), which sounds about right percentage-wise.  If you don't think that's enough of a section of the population, then you better be saying that people with Random Obscure Disease of Your Choice have to pay full costs for their prescription as well.
 
2013-11-27 01:18:18 PM
Okay I may be being a bit strawman-y there.  The "BC pills are 100% optional" thought just drives me up a wall.
 
2013-11-27 02:08:34 PM

OgreMagi: pedrop357: Hobodeluxe: what if your company decides that it doesn't want you to spend your paycheck on alcohol? or non kosher food? can they issue edicts to their employees to stop doing everything that they might disagree with?

They're not issuing edicts here either.  Nothing stops you form buying alcohol, non kosher food, OR contraceptives.

I only want to drink the nicest scotch, why is my company stopping me from buying bottles of 40 year old scotch all the time by not paying for my scotch?

Were you guaranteed scotch in your contract?  No?  Then shut the fark up.

My employment contract includes health coverage.  If they decided to start taking out parts of that coverage because the corporate religion finds it offensive, I would have issues with them.  Legal issues involving a court.


Do most people have contracts?  No?  Then shut the fark up.
 
2013-11-27 02:13:29 PM

Killthatgecko: By it's nature, insurance should be evenly applied, every human should have equal insurance rights AND costs. That's why they call it "INSURANCE" that's how it's supposed to work!
WE, as humans are not an expensive car or boat with costs that justify varying rates . Humans should not be pro-rated like property! we are all equally susceptible to the same illnesses and accidents who ever we work for.


Not sure if serious.

If serious:
That's not how insurance works at at all.

We are not all susceptible to the same illnesses and accidents.  People who choose to engage in risky behavior do not have the same injuries as those who are more careful.  People who take care of themselves-eating right, exercise, and/or paying attention to their symptoms do not suffer from the same illnesses as people who like to drink excessively, eat crap all the time, and/or ignoring symptoms.

Insurance is a risk pool that everyone contributes to.  The more of a risk you are to the pool, the more your contribution is.  THAT is how insurance works.
 
2013-11-27 02:16:24 PM

pedrop357: OgreMagi: pedrop357: Hobodeluxe: what if your company decides that it doesn't want you to spend your paycheck on alcohol? or non kosher food? can they issue edicts to their employees to stop doing everything that they might disagree with?

They're not issuing edicts here either.  Nothing stops you form buying alcohol, non kosher food, OR contraceptives.

I only want to drink the nicest scotch, why is my company stopping me from buying bottles of 40 year old scotch all the time by not paying for my scotch?

Were you guaranteed scotch in your contract?  No?  Then shut the fark up.

My employment contract includes health coverage.  If they decided to start taking out parts of that coverage because the corporate religion finds it offensive, I would have issues with them.  Legal issues involving a court.

Do most people have contracts?  No?  Then shut the fark up.


You should try working outside of the fast food service industry.

Also, shut the fark up.
 
2013-11-27 02:50:09 PM

Onyx Serpent: Yes there are. Myself, 3 or 4 of my cousins, my ex roommate, my best friend through high school, a couple of gaming buddies of mine, and that's just off the top of my head. And I'm pretty much a hermit, so that's a fairly significant sample size, even accounting for genetics. Not all for the same reason, of course, but they were all put on it (initially, at least) because of medical rather than contraceptive reasons.

Hell, Wikipedia says that 5% - 10% of reproductive-age women may have PCOS (ignoring everything else that BC would treat), which sounds about right percentage-wise. If you don't think that's enough of a section of the population, then you better be saying that people with Random Obscure Disease of Your Choice have to pay full costs for their prescription as well.


If a doctor says it's medically necessary insurance companies tend to pay. You know perfectly well this is not about medical care it's about pandering.
 
2013-11-27 09:19:39 PM
Count on it.

Theres a reason why the GOP keeps blocking Obama judge appointees.  Even if the GOP sucks, conservative judges is going to be their legacy.
 
Displayed 431 of 431 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report