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.

(Salon)   As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the Obamacare/birth control case tomorrow, its conservative justices are faced with a dilemma: support the religious right, or support laws which shield corporations from liability?   (salon.com) divider line 51
    More: Fail, Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, obamacare, moral dilemma, religious values, racial identity, hypocrisy, conservatisms  
•       •       •

2460 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Mar 2014 at 6:07 PM (17 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-03-24 05:33:26 PM
6 votes:
Wouldn't it be nice if we had single payer healthcare and didn't have to deal with this argument?
2014-03-24 06:14:02 PM
5 votes:
mindcemetery.net

"But the religious right was the corporation the whole time!!"
2014-03-24 03:47:53 PM
4 votes:
When have the conservative powers that be ever supported the religious right over corporations?
2014-03-24 07:52:19 PM
3 votes:

k1j2b3: "In order to effectively serve our owners, employees, and customers the Board of Directors is committed to:

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


And can you tell me where "the lord" said he was against allowing others to choose for themselves contraception exactly?
2014-03-24 06:58:10 PM
3 votes:
Amazing, someone in the media actually farking noticed the elephant in the room of this case, which is that if they rule in Hobby Jobbie's favour then they are opening the door to personal liability and responsibility of corporate owners for their corporations. The people pushing this think they can have their cake and eat it, but they can not. If they win this then they are going to get absolutely hammered in future, and yet they do not see it coming at all.
2014-03-24 04:42:23 PM
3 votes:
The Amish have to put reflectors on their buggies, they objected but they lost their case.

If the Amish can be forced to put reflectors on their buggies, then I dont see how Hobby Lobby and these other religios people can win.
2014-03-24 07:45:50 PM
2 votes:
The smartest thing i have heard Scalia ever say:

Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.

are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.


It will be sad to see him pretend that he never said it or somehow this is magically different. I have hope he will be consistent but doubt he actually will.
2014-03-24 07:08:25 PM
2 votes:

gaspode: Amazing, someone in the media actually farking noticed the elephant in the room of this case, which is that if they rule in Hobby Jobbie's favour then they are opening the door to personal liability and responsibility of corporate owners for their corporations. The people pushing this think they can have their cake and eat it, but they can not. If they win this then they are going to get absolutely hammered in future, and yet they do not see it coming at all.


Foresight has not been among our corporate masters' virtues for quite some time. If C-level and board of directors types could appreciate the long-term consequences of their actions, the Great Recession would have never happened.
2014-03-24 06:30:59 PM
2 votes:
It is absolutely jaw dropping that a legal fiction to smooth the running of businesses could be interpreted to give a company the right to influence elections and elected representatives under the guise of their Freedom of Speech, so I'll not be the least bit surprised if they rule companies also have the right to be assholes on religious grounds.
2014-03-24 06:23:28 PM
2 votes:

maudibjr: There is only one true religion: Money


God Money I'll do anything for you
God Money just tell me what you want me to
God Money nail me up against the wall
God Money don't want everything he wants it all
2014-03-24 04:51:41 PM
2 votes:
2014-03-24 04:36:16 PM
2 votes:
If they rule in favor of "religious freedom" , would't that open up the USA to "Sharia Law" which everyone is so against?
2014-03-24 04:24:55 PM
2 votes:
It's going to be an interesting case. How far does corporate religious identity go?

The courts have long held that if you enter the markelace, then you have to live by the rules of the marketplace. And the rules are secular.
2014-03-25 04:19:15 AM
1 votes:
Matthew 6:24: "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."
2014-03-24 11:41:19 PM
1 votes:
If the Hobby Lobby corporation has sincere religious beliefs, to which church does the corporation tithe?  Which religious service does the corporation attend?  Does the corporation receive anointing with oil?

This whole affair is non-productive and rather idiotic.
2014-03-24 10:40:24 PM
1 votes:
Africans: in the 19th century south.

Jews: in Hitler's Germany.

Christians: in Obama's America.


That's right. All of these groups were targeted for heinous persecution at the hands of governments and societies who hated them for no reason other than their assigned or quasi-assigned characteristics. Even though really claims of black persecution in the 19th century south are gravely exaggerated--most slaves were contented, and most slave owners kind. Those ingrates suffered barely at all in comparison with Christians in Obama's America.

Their travails frozen out of public discourse by the overwhelmingly popular MSM statist left-wing liberal mainstream media (which only represents the views of a tiny minority of extreme fanatic leftists), few Americans have even heard of the multiple tyrannies plaguing Christians in this hateful era. How many of you even know, for example:

1) That some Christians have been wished "happy holidays" by people so rude they don't even ask their victims' religion before they harass them with obnoxious pagan "holiday" greetings.

2) That some Christian service sector employees have been asked to wish customers "happy holidays," with no consideration whatsoever for whether or not the employee is a Christian who even celebrates "holidays" instead of CHRISTmas.

3) That some Christians who have built four story tall light up Jesus statues in their own residential neighborhood backyards have been asked to take them down to comply with so-called "zoning ordinances."

4) That Christian children in public schools have been forced (at gunpoint!) to study science lessons their parents disagree with. With no effort even made to balance those lessons with readings from dissenting alternative science textbooks like the Book of Genesis.

5) That several states and the federal government have now passed laws enhancing sentencing for the commission of violent crimes motivated by sexual orientation bias.

6) That Christians have been prosecuted and even imprisoned merely for exercising their religions! That's right. Some Christians have been jailed merely for denying their children (their own children! the ones they own!) medical treatment which would have saved them outright from sometimes painful and wholly needless deaths.

7) That some wicked liberals have the sheer, thrilling gall to mock America's Christians' unceasing whiny claims that they're persecuted!

Clearly the persecution of America's Christians has spiraled out of control. This attempt to require Hobby Lobby, a publicly traded for-profit commercial corporation, to comply with a constitutionally permissible law of general applicability, is just the latest outrage.

What can be done? What can be done to reverse the trend? Is it too late to revitalize religious freedom in America? The state of American religion is like a leaf withered on a vine. It's sad, so sad, to see Christianity in America so blighted. Can you even find occupied pews in churches anymore? I must confess, it takes a brave soul to publicly admit he's a Christian in Obamatyrant Hussein's America.
2014-03-24 10:27:31 PM
1 votes:
well said hubiestubert
2014-03-24 09:53:27 PM
1 votes:

cchris_39: As a CFO for the past 18 years.....that is just wrong.

Employers have huge control over plan design. For example, we offered amazing maternity benefits in order to attract a young family oriented workforce.

What you decide to cover and to what extent has a significant impact on cost.


You failed to address the actual point: the employer pays for NOTHING directly. They be involved in the choice of plan, but they DO NOT PAY FOR ANY SPECIFIC PROCEDURES. The Hobby Lobby, nor ANY employers for that matter who offer insurance, do NOT "pay for birth control." They don't "pay for abortions." They don't "pay for asthma pills" nor do they "pay for cancer treatments" directly. Even those "amazing maternity benefits" your company DIDN'T pay for. They arranged to have someone else pay for them, in return for monthly payments, and the continuing co-pays from employees who held the policies. YOUR company didn't eat the cost in any way, shape, or form. You paid for a policy. Not the procedures. Your company paid into a pool, at a rate that you agreed to, and your employees agreed to, and the bet was that more folks would stay healthy and NOT need procedures that month than what was taken in by the insurance company.

So the ruckus is that their employees may choose to use their own insurance--which they are paying for, perhaps with some subsidy--to get procedures that someone may not like on that board. They still aren't paying for abortions. They still aren't paying for birth control. They are paying for a policy, and how that policy is used, that is a different thing. Moreover, in the case of gynecological health, what some term as "birth control" have more uses in their prescription than just birth control. But Viagra? That's OK. Because boners are far more important than reducing the chances of ovarian cysts or controlling a woman's cycle who has issues with pain associated.

The central argument, again and again, is that these employers don't want to pay for these procedures. Which they don't. They might as well argue that they don't want any of the money that they pay their employees with EVER goes to porn, birth control, or alcohol, and to insure that is the case, that they want to monitor their employees' behavior to prevent such things, as it is in their "interests" so that their religious beliefs aren't violated...
2014-03-24 09:48:43 PM
1 votes:

The Larch: Hobby Lobby owners want to deny their employees the ability to purchase birth control at group rates negotiated by an insurance company.

In a just world, every judge this went in front of would cite the case "go eat a sack of yeasty bungholes" and the legal precedent of "no, I'm serious. I sent the bailiff to the slaughterhouse and he brought back a sack full of yeasty bungholes. The owners of hobby lobby will eat them now, for our amusement."


I'm back! That took me forever. For future reference, they prefer the term 'imitation calamari'.

img.photobucket.com

Also, I think the argument HL is ultimately trying to make is that employers should not be involved in providing healthcare at all. And I agree. A person's access to healthcare should not be limited by their employer.
2014-03-24 09:31:01 PM
1 votes:
Short term gain.

Ever since the late 80s the conventional wisdom has been that a Bonus today is worth the whole company tomorrow.  They'll grab the "religious exemption" and watch a whole bucketload of companies start trying to use religion to get around any and all employment laws they don't like.

Fun fact: churches and similar religious organizations are basically the worst employers in the nation because they long ago finagled exemptions from most employee protections.  They steal pensions, fire people for fun, pay you whatever they feel like, and use "religion" as a shield for almost any abuse.

And when shiat hits the fan major corporations expect (with good reason) to get bailed out.
2014-03-24 09:29:32 PM
1 votes:
I say carry to the logical conclusion - Corporations are non-autonomous extensions of the stockholders, and said stockholders are liable to the degree of ownership for all actions of the corporation. So mandatory requirements for all stockholders to submit, in writing, their religious beliefs and why they hold that such beliefs are so powerful and so encompassing that they require special exemption under an otherwise secular marketplace regulation. Citations will be required and theological doctrine must be supported by a consensus of your practicing faith's central body, b**ches.
2014-03-24 09:12:59 PM
1 votes:

cchris_39: The Larch: Hobby Lobby owners want to deny their employees the ability to purchase birth control at group rates negotiated by an insurance company.

In a just world, every judge this went in front of would cite the case "go eat a sack of yeasty bungholes" and the legal precedent of "no, I'm serious. I sent the bailiff to the slaughterhouse and he brought back a sack full of yeasty bungholes. The owners of hobby lobby will eat them now, for our amusement."

Then shouldn't they also be forced to cover late term abortion?


Actually, they wouldn't. They cover the policy, not the medical costs themselves. And they KNOW this. The policy holder pays for the policy, secured by employer, and perhaps somewhat subsidized by the employer, but Hobby Lobby doesn't pay for any procedure at all. Their funds are pooled with others, and the insurance company then pays a portion of that.

Hobby Lobby pays for no contraception. They pay for no broken arms. They pay for the coverage, and that's where it ends. Their money goes into a pool to be used, and distributed at the insurance company's discretion, for their client, who happens to be a Hobby Lobby employee. Hobby Lobby isn't involved in ANY medical decision whatsoever. In fact, how in the Hells would Hobby Lobby even know what medical care they are having, unless it is involved in a Workman's Compensation claim? Their "compelling interest" is likewise an intrusion into the privacy of their employees.

Your employer doesn't pay for squat, save the policy. What medical care you receive is between you and your insurance company. And that's the funny thing that NO ONE who argues for this invasion of privacy wants to discuss.

Your employer doesn't pay for birth control. Your employer doesn't pay for your asthma pills, your employer doesn't pay for the cream you use on the weird sore that cropped up on the back of your neck. They pay for the policy, and what you USE that policy for is between you and the insurance company. This is a matter of folks wanting to poke their noses into other folks' business.
2014-03-24 09:09:31 PM
1 votes:

cchris_39: The Larch: Hobby Lobby owners want to deny their employees the ability to purchase birth control at group rates negotiated by an insurance company.

In a just world, every judge this went in front of would cite the case "go eat a sack of yeasty bungholes" and the legal precedent of "no, I'm serious. I sent the bailiff to the slaughterhouse and he brought back a sack full of yeasty bungholes. The owners of hobby lobby will eat them now, for our amusement."

Then shouldn't they also be forced to cover late term abortion?


Perhaps you're confused. Hobby Lobby is a retail establishment that sells hobby supplies. They're not an insurance company. They don't "cover" anything.
2014-03-24 08:51:55 PM
1 votes:

DamnYankees: Warlordtrooper: Since all religion is, is a made up set of beliefs, any court ruling that a belief is not "sincerely held" is violating the first amendment rights of a person who wants to hold those beliefs.

That's completely false. A court is surely capable of determining whether or not you're lying about what you believe.


People change religions all the time.  Its not impossible to switch your beliefs.  The government (which the court system is a part of) telling you that you are or are not part of a religion is a violation of the first amendment.
2014-03-24 08:33:14 PM
1 votes:

Darth Macho: If five of them think a faceless organization has identity enough to 'Free Speech' unlimited money at candidates then they can also say it is capable of having undefined religious beliefs. And only after the vote do they have to come up with an explanation for why nonsense is now law.


Actually it was Congress (in a law signed by President Clinton) that passed a law that gave religious protections to corporations.  At least the one that is most relevant to this case.

Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.42 U.S. Code § 2000bb-1(a)

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise . . .the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.1 U.S. Code § 1

How dare the Supreme Court interpret laws that way that Congress told them to! Unthinkable. :)


2014-03-24 08:16:27 PM
1 votes:
This dilemma is predicated on the assumption that the Supreme Court operates on rules and logic rather than gut feelings. "Because we say so," has always been the motto of the institution.

If five of them think a faceless organization has identity enough to 'Free Speech' unlimited money at candidates then they can also say it is capable of having undefined religious beliefs. And only after the vote do they have to come up with an explanation for why nonsense is now law.

The ridiculous is always possible at the U.S. Supreme Court.
2014-03-24 08:15:38 PM
1 votes:

bobothemagnificent: DamnYankees: bobothemagnificent: The could rule the whole thing unconstitutional.

What whole thing?
The WHOLE damn law, in its entirety.  Don't forget that Stevens, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito wanted to do just that originally because they thought that this law created powers that the constitution never intended the government to have to begin with.  Don't be surprised if that comes up again in private discussions.


lh6.googleusercontent.com
2014-03-24 08:08:33 PM
1 votes:

DamnYankees: When have the conservative powers that be ever supported the religious right over corporations?


Exactly.  They'll take corporations over religion every single time.  Corporations are the real masters of the right; religion is just a means of getting morons to vote for things that will benefit corporations.
2014-03-24 08:00:09 PM
1 votes:
To summarize:

Bakery owner: No cakes for gheys because Jesus.
Court: *biatchslaps bigot*

Corporation: No birth control for employees because Jesus.
Court: .....?
Corporation: Did we mention Jesus and loads of money?
2014-03-24 07:59:50 PM
1 votes:

DamnYankees: RoyBatty: So I would answer your question by saying it doesn't matter. If the corporation says "We believe in little green men and fantastic beings we will call gods and angels and demons" and there is no other reason for the gov't to pierce the veil (for instance none of the shareholders are denying that) then I'd say it ends there.

This is wrong, I think. As a lawyer (albeit not a first amendment expert), I can confidently say that one of the criteria for claiming a religious objection to compliance with a law is that you need to show that the religious belief is sincerely held. In other words, you actually need to believe what you claim to believe. That's why it matter. If a corporation says "I don't want to pay for contraception because God says its bad", you need to have some way to test that believe and determine if the corporation really believes that. How could you do that without analyzing the beliefs of the shareholders?


Well, for starters, you could look at the fact that Hobby Lobby quite happily provided contraception in their employees health insurance for years.  And that it only became a problem when the law required them to do what they had previously done willingly, and which they now say they cannot do.

At the very least, the justices would have to ask them when and why their sincerely held beliefs changed.
2014-03-24 07:59:20 PM
1 votes:

Corvus: k1j2b3: "In order to effectively serve our owners, employees, and customers the Board of Directors is committed to:

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

And can you tell me where "the lord" said he was against allowing others to choose for themselves contraception exactly?


I never said this. This is the statement from the company itself. Just because I am quoting a company's statements does not make them mine. I am guessing that the owners / board members of Hobby Lobby believe that providing birth control of the type that is required under Obamacare is not in line with 'Biblical principles.' You can try to argue that their beliefs are stupid, invalid or out-dated, but they are still their beliefs. I am sure you are well aware of the Catholic Church's stance on contraception, so I am guessing the Hobby Lobby may be in line with this type of thinking. Is it really so horrific for people who work for a Christian company with clearly stated Christian beliefs behind their company operation to NOT have certain contraceptive coverage in their health insurance? I mean, really, it is not that much of a hardship.

Many years ago, I had insurance provided through an employer (non-Christian) and it only covered certain birth control items despite what my doctor thought about it...I would've had to pay for it myself. I wasn't railing about the coverage. I just chose differently based on what my insurance covered. It was not a big deal.

I find it incredibly silly that Obama will allow certain companies and groups of people to be excluded from the mandate, but then gets all up in arms about THIS. It is weird and contradictory.
2014-03-24 07:56:56 PM
1 votes:

officeday: serial_crusher: Wouldn't it be nice if we had single payer healthcare and didn't have to deal with this argument?

Not trying to be a smart aleck, I swear. It is a fact that a certain percentage of the U.S. populace does not pay any federal income tax, and admitedly I do not understand what a "single payer" system entails, but would assume that the cost of insuring all Americans would be dependant upon federal taxes collected. Not asking if it is moral, ethical, or fair, but is it even POSSIBLE for the tax base to pay for this? I just get the feeling that the "middle class" will end up paying a disproportiniate (sp?) share compard to the "poor" and to the "rich". We can't afford much more. Just not certain if we need to kill the poor or kill the rich.....


We already pay more public money into our private healthcare system, per capita, than any other country on earth, including countries with single payer. At this point, single payer will save us money without having much of an effect on anyone's tax burden.
2014-03-24 07:56:49 PM
1 votes:

Corvus: It will be sad to see him pretend that he never said it or somehow this is magically different. I have hope he will be consistent but doubt he actually will.


Hoping for Scalia to be consistent is like hoping you can let out a squeaker on a first date after eating nothing but Mexican food for three days without your date hearing it.

Personally, I see the court completely ignoring the religious freedom issue.  They can toss it out by saying "Whether corporations can hold religious freedom rights is a moot point, because even if they did, the PPACA is a law of general applicability and they'd still have to obey it."  There's no need to open up the 'can a corporation have a religion' can of worms, so why bother with it?

Scalia and Thomas will probably write a dissent saying that Hobby Lobby is a fine upstanding Christian corporation they fully expect to see standing in line at the pearly gates and futhermore ...
2014-03-24 07:56:28 PM
1 votes:

k1j2b3: I think they have a pretty good case here, based on this statement. They have built their business around Christian values and are very clear what they are on their website and other corporate materials.


So if I am a Jehova witness company I don't have to pay for insurance that covers surgeries?

If I am a Company that believes in pacifism (which Christ actually said he was for, unlike banning contraception) I don't have to pay taxes that go to making war weapons?

Or do you think only certain religons get this benefit?
2014-03-24 07:49:18 PM
1 votes:
Honestly, I think the biggest problem for the Obama administration will be the number of waivers and 'outs' for certain groups, but not for these types of Christian people who run companies and/or nuns and other religious people who run non-profit organizations and have employees. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Why give an out for the Amish, let's say, but not for nuns? What is the difference between these two groups? Why does one merit the waiver and not the other?

If the administration cannot support valid reasons why SOME groups were given waivers while others were not (for random reasons that don't have any connection that I can see) then I don't think they can refuse waivers for others.

Also, if you look at Hobby Lobby's "statement of purpose," which existed well before Obamacare ever came into being, faith is all over that thing:

"In order to effectively serve our owners, employees, and customers the Board of Directors is committed to:

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

Offering our customers an exceptional selection and value.

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 owners' 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."

I think they have a pretty good case here, based on this statement. They have built their business around Christian values and are very clear what they are on their website and other corporate materials.
2014-03-24 07:35:49 PM
1 votes:

Teiritzamna: RoyBatty: I don't think that corporations are "persons", or needed to be persons in order to own property or be sued. And I don't think they needed to be persons to own property or be sued prior to 1886. And I certainly don't think the court should have waited 128 years to clear up a decision like that attributed not to a judge but to a court reporter.

Modern corporations came about in the late 1800s (railroads mostly), so its not unreasonable that there would be a delay in the Court ruling on it.  And the fact that it was basically asserted by a reporter is pretty horrible, actually, but the fact that the court didn't much care is in line with the general philosophy that this was in fact the law, the court just hadn't said it yet.

Without the protections of the 14th amendment, companies are substantially worse than partnerships, as they lack protections against federal grabs of company property.  Why would you invest in an entity that had no rights against the federal government when you could instead at least get actual constitutional protections from a partnership?   As the whole idea of a corporation is to create an entity capable of acting as an individual, making that entity either powerless against the feds or merely a partnership in thier eyes would be somewhat problematic.

Of course i don't really much care, myself, but the world would be a pretty different place without corporations having such rights.


I'll assume you know more about this than I do, but regardless, it pisses me the fark off.

Having said that, I've been intrigued the couple of times I've heard Thom Hartmann speak to this, and in part what he does is discuss exactly that, what the world might look like if we had different understandings of corporate rights, and corporate responsibilities. And then he talks about nations that do in fact have different  understandings of corporate rights and responsibilities to show how life might be different.

That was enlightening for me.

For instance, in the US, Milton Friedman says corporations should not care about social responsibility just for the sake of being good corporate persons. They should just maximize profits and then shareholders can pick or choose among corporations as they please. And under US concepts of corporations, I find his argument difficult to refute.

But Hartmann points to European nations in which in law, it says that corporations have a responsibility to the nation. And there, Friedman's argument is wrong. They as a society have chosen differently.

Anyway, I find that interesting.
2014-03-24 07:23:11 PM
1 votes:

vernonFL: If they rule in favor of "religious freedom" , would't that open up the USA to "Sharia Law" which everyone is so against?


This. Boss is a JW? Got cancer? Sorry, no transfusions for you.
2014-03-24 07:19:48 PM
1 votes:

Teiritzamna: TheShavingofOccam123: But if you think they meant that people would have the ability not only to make messages with their bodies, but also to run off broadsheets, post signs, and print books, then you admit that money is an essential element of the right to speak.

Ah so are you switching your argument? That the use of money to further expression is within the ambit of the First Amendment, but now such ability should only be reserved to natural persons?  That when people group together their rights go away?  Because under that rubric the Koch brothers are set, but anyone who doesn't happen to have a few billion cannot band together with other normal folks and try to fight fire with fire.


Apparently, you didn't read my post. Let me quote it again.

super PACs, social welfare groups and corporations poured more than $1 billion into the 2012 election cycle; with $300 million of those dollars from undisclosed sources.

$300 million dollars from hidden sources. That's not people. That's LLCs shielding bribery and graft.
2014-03-24 07:16:17 PM
1 votes:
Corporations are the only people who can still practice abortions without the religious right going ape.
2014-03-24 07:12:20 PM
1 votes:

Teiritzamna: That the use of money to further expression is within the ambit of the First Amendment, but now such ability should only be reserved to natural persons?  That when people group together their rights go away?  Because under that rubric the Koch brothers are set, but anyone who doesn't happen to have a few billion cannot band together with other normal folks and try to fight fire with fire.


There's a fundamental difference between groups organized for the purpose of advocating a position and those that are not. The issue isn't "should groups be able to get together to speak" - of course they can, that was never an issue. The issue is that almost all corporations are not organized for that purpose.
2014-03-24 07:04:47 PM
1 votes:

Teiritzamna: TheShavingofOccam123: As another entry on that pages states, money is PROPERTY not SPEECH.

Money is a force multiplier that allows people to get their message out. If you honestly believe that the framers only expected your ability to talk out loud to be covered by the first amendment, sure fine i suppose.

But if you think they meant that people would have the ability not only to make messages with their bodies, but also to run off broadsheets, post signs, and print books, then you admit that money is an essential element of the right to speak.

2014-03-24 06:50:31 PM
1 votes:

Target Builder: It is absolutely jaw dropping that a legal fiction to smooth the running of businesses could be interpreted to give a company the right to influence elections and elected representatives under the guise of their Freedom of Speech, so I'll not be the least bit surprised if they rule companies also have the right to be assholes on religious grounds.


I'd so like to see a smackdown to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.

I think I could vote blindly for any candidate that promises to deal with that decision.
2014-03-24 06:31:05 PM
1 votes:

PanicMan: DamnYankees: Throughout this entire debate, I've always been confused by the basic issue. There seems to be 2 ways to phrase this issue, in terms of religious rights.

1) The corporation itself has rights based on religious beliefs held by the corporation, and you determine those beliefs by looking to the religious beliefs of the controlling shareholders.

2) The corporation doesn't have its own religious beliefs. Rather, the religious rights of individuals include the right to own stock in a corporation and direct such corporation's actions such that they comport with your religious beliefs.

Do we know which claim is being asserted? Both?

I'm pretty sure it's 1.

My understanding is that it stems from citizens united. If a corp can have 1st amendment free sppech, why not 1st ammend religion?

Answer: because corporations aren't alive and don't have beliefs.


Yep.  It's a multi-pincher attack.  The efforts to exempt businesses from anti-discrimination statutes due to belief is important here, too.  They're trying to get to the point where corporations and their leaders can legally refuse to pay taxes, serve certain kinds of people, or obey laws they deem 'unconscionable'.  Don't think the end of the recent Arizona law is the end of efforts at that end.

Thanks to ALEC, this shiat is never going to end.
2014-03-24 06:20:46 PM
1 votes:

DamnYankees: Throughout this entire debate, I've always been confused by the basic issue. There seems to be 2 ways to phrase this issue, in terms of religious rights.

1) The corporation itself has rights based on religious beliefs held by the corporation, and you determine those beliefs by looking to the religious beliefs of the controlling shareholders.

2) The corporation doesn't have its own religious beliefs. Rather, the religious rights of individuals include the right to own stock in a corporation and direct such corporation's actions such that they comport with your religious beliefs.

Do we know which claim is being asserted? Both?


I'm pretty sure it's 1.

My understanding is that it stems from citizens united. If a corp can have 1st amendment free sppech, why not 1st ammend religion?

Answer: because corporations aren't alive and don't have beliefs.
2014-03-24 06:10:37 PM
1 votes:
Business trumps religion in the GOP.  Just don';t say it out loud.
2014-03-24 06:09:20 PM
1 votes:

maudibjr: There is only one true religion:  Money



For the night is dark and full of debtors?
2014-03-24 05:57:57 PM
1 votes:
No matter how they rule, something relevant to this case is going to spark droves of religious people into a massive spontaneous support event for Hobby Lobby.  I'm off to buy stock in craft glue and glitter.
2014-03-24 04:50:57 PM
1 votes:

hubiestubert: Darth_Lukecash: It's going to be an interesting case. How far does corporate religious identity go?

The courts have long held that if you enter the markelace, then you have to live by the rules of the marketplace. And the rules are secular.

But losses, those are to be shared with the public, right? And since the public is overwhelmingly Christian, all corporations are thus to be held by Christian standards--well, except for that whole, no withholding pay or not owning property into perpetuity, which is Old Testament, and those people were crazy. Which is why our corporations should be able to own people. Because. Jesus.




I think we should follow the laws golf the old testament and ban shrimp and bacon. Then bring in the new testament ban on usiary.

Then we shall see how religious these motherfarkers are.
2014-03-24 04:28:15 PM
1 votes:

Peter von Nostrand: Elections only have consequences when Democrats lose




They have consequences when the democrats win, either. Sadly it's the same consequence.
2014-03-24 04:24:54 PM
1 votes:
Throughout this entire debate, I've always been confused by the basic issue. There seems to be 2 ways to phrase this issue, in terms of religious rights.

1) The corporation itself has rights based on religious beliefs held by the corporation, and you determine those beliefs by looking to the religious beliefs of the controlling shareholders.

2) The corporation doesn't have its own religious beliefs. Rather, the religious rights of individuals include the right to own stock in a corporation and direct such corporation's actions such that they comport with your religious beliefs.

Do we know which claim is being asserted? Both?
2014-03-24 03:49:14 PM
1 votes:
There is only one true religion:  Money


and fried chicken!
 
Displayed 51 of 51 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report