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.
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.
Irving Maimway: What I'd like to know is if corporations are people, why can other people own them?
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.
Cyberluddite: Making them into people was easy for him, but making them into Mormons has proven to be more difficult.
edmo: Companies never had a religion until Romney made them people.
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."
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.
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.
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.
Cyberluddite: More significantly, the Supremes will essentially be deciding whether a corporation can have a religion
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 recountCitizens United
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: What religion is The Hobby Lobby, anyway?
If you like these links, you'll love
Total accessTotal knowledgeTotal Fark
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2018 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jun 20 2018 04:28:56
Runtime: 0.632 sec (632 ms)