SocialistSlayer said: DarkWraith said: SocialistSlayer said: The Supreme court just ruled that the federal government actually can't massively overreach is power and force employers to buy contraception against their religious convictions.  you need to think a bit beyond the surface level of something...for example suppose I own a business and I don't believe in medicine, does this not now mean I don't have to offer a healthcare plan with prescription medicine coverage? expand a bit further, suppose I do not believe in *standard medicine* and instead believe homeopathic "medicine" should be covered instead. now explode it...I don't believe in doctors, only GAWD ALMIGHTY can heal his flock. now what? am I not forced to offer ANY healthcare? maybe just a pamphlet to church instead? :D Well I say you shouldn't have to.  It's your business do with it what you please.  Your employees don't have to work for you. But still it's not a valid comparison because pregnancy is not a disease

that's avoiding the issue here. the fact is that employers DO have to provide a healthcare plan to their employees. so you need to address what type of offering is needed. you seem to be in agreement with all of my scenarios...that's alarming. some nutbag business owner can dictate that jesus can heal me when I get sick?

the comparison is perfectly valid for the EXACT reasons I cited, this is a slippery slope. this abortion pill thing is a smokescreen for the opportunities this opens, I couldn't care less about the abortion pills. my concern is what other types of religious challenges will obtain.

DarkWraith said: SocialistSlayer said: DarkWraith said: SocialistSlayer said: The Supreme court just ruled that the federal government actually can't massively overreach is power and force employers to buy contraception against their religious convictions.  you need to think a bit beyond the surface level of something...for example suppose I own a business and I don't believe in medicine, does this not now mean I don't have to offer a healthcare plan with prescription medicine coverage? expand a bit further, suppose I do not believe in *standard medicine* and instead believe homeopathic "medicine" should be covered instead. now explode it...I don't believe in doctors, only GAWD ALMIGHTY can heal his flock. now what? am I not forced to offer ANY healthcare? maybe just a pamphlet to church instead? :D Well I say you shouldn't have to.  It's your business do with it what you please.  Your employees don't have to work for you. But still it's not a valid comparison because pregnancy is not a disease that's avoiding the issue here. the fact is that employers DO have to provide a healthcare plan to their employees. so you need to address what type of offering is needed. you seem to be in agreement with all of my scenarios...that's alarming. some nutbag business owner can dictate that jesus can heal me when I get sick? the comparison is perfectly valid for the EXACT reasons I cited, this is a slippery slope. this abortion pill thing is a smokescreen for the opportunities this opens, I couldn't care less about the abortion pills. my concern is what other types of religious challenges will obtain.

Bolded.  Shouldn't THAT be what alarms you?  You're willing to overlook the root of the problem to address a "slippery slope"?

It is a slippery slope, I agree.... but speration of church and state is a lot easier when then state keeps its nose out of shit it shouldn't be in (in the first place).

 

Bold 2.  This is not a disease, it's a preventative measure for RECREATION.  But still, I agree slippery slope.  The best fix is to not force ANY insurance on anyone, and certainly not force it to be tied to an employer.  That way you can get an insurance plan that fits your needs.  Some include emergencies only (20s), some add preventative care (40s), and some even add preventative recreational measures, etc.  Free market!

kanageddaamen said: For me this wasn't about the affordable care act, religion, or birth control, but the idea that an employer can dictate what you can and can't do with compensation you earn by working for them. I see no difference between "As part of being an employee, you earn health insurance, but I don't want you to use that health insurance to get the morning after pill" and "As part of being an employee, you earn $800 a week, but I don't want you to use that $800 to get the morning after pill" The employer pays for both your health insurance and your salary, what is the difference?

There's a pretty clear difference between the two. An employer health plan is nothing more than a negotiated form of compensation for services: different employers offer radically different health plans.

In the case herein, the negotiated compensation (apparently, I haven't read the decision) does not include the morning after pill as part of the health insurance. Don't forget, there are lots of different health care plans with different services offered: dental and vision are the two biggest optional ones, but heavens knows there are as many permutations as there are stars in the sky. The employees here are apparently free to spend some of that salary they've earned (and have full control over) to purchase the pill if they so wish, just like nothing stops an employee who doesn't have a dental package from actually visiting a dentist.

-CraZed- said: Corporations are made up of people just like any other organization. Why should they be treated any differently in regards to their Constitutional rights?

Because they lack many of the characteristics that are either required to exercise some Constitutional rights or which give purpose to some Constitutional rights.

Corporations already lack the right of self-representation in courts, for what I hope are obvious reasons. It's similarly difficult to argue that a corporation, as a purely fictitious entity created solely for ease of conducting business, can genuinely hold any of its own beliefs., which is a minimum requirement to exercise some constitutional rights. A corporation, simply put, is not an individual in any real sense of the word: why should it be granted the protections intended to safeguard individuals? Each of the people making up the corporation already has each of those rights, so what need is there for extending the protection for individuals to the fictitious entity which most of its members have little to no control over?

Let me take your rhetorical question and turn it on itself. You ask why an organization made of people*should not be entitled to Constitutional protections. And yet, to the best of my knowledge, we have extended those protections solely to corporations (and maybe LLCs?). Yet these are far from the only form organizations can take: a partnership, for example, or simply an unincorporated group of people who meet for a specific purpose, are similarly organizations composed of real people, yet these organizations do not enjoy the same Constitutional protections.

 

 

*Which is not strictly true of corporations: a corporation can be composed solely of one person, or even exclusively of other fictitious legal entities like other corporations

kanageddaamen said: This argument may hold for a sole proprietorship or partnership, but not a corporation or limited liability company. The latter two are separate legal entities from their owners, with their own tax id and legal status.  They are treated as such to separate themselves from the owners and protect the owners' assets should the company fall on financial trouble.

Small correction: while things may be different in your state, a sole proprietorship is not a separate legal entity from its owner, and its owner remains personally liable for its debts. A partnership is similar in that the partners' assets are vulnerable for the partnerships' debts, unless the partnership took the steps to become a legal entity such as an LP or LLP. This is the reason every business really should shell out the cash to form some sort of limited liability entity.

Figgycal said:  Because of this ruling, a corporation's religious views in fact, do trump the religious views of its employees.This decision is literally only protecting the interest of Christian business owners who look down on contraceptives and is a blatant betrayal of the first ammendment. We will see other faiths try to pull the same act in the future. And this ruling also sets precedence that not only are corporations people, but they also now have religious beliefs and can exempt themselves from laws they have a religious objection to. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Your first paragraph is incorrect: said employees in your hypothetical would continue to have the right to purchase the items you stated, they just wouldn't be included as part of their health plan. Which, in light of the fact that employers are not always required to offer any health plan to speak of, and that those procedures are available for purchase, makes it difficult to argue that exclusion from the employer-provided health plan is somehow a denial of those services to the employee.

 

I share your confusion in the second paragraph though. The purpose of a corporation is solely and explicitly to be a separate entity from its members: failure to act accordingly surrenders the owners' protection from individual liability. Imposing the owners' religious beliefs onto the corporation requires a logical leap which I am not capable of.

Uddermode said: Picking and choosing is wrong. Either all types are fought against or none.

And your basis for this argument is ___________.

 

DarkWraith said: you need to think a bit beyond the surface level of something...for example suppose I own a business and I don't believe in medicine, does this not now mean I don't have to offer a healthcare plan with prescription medicine coverage? expand a bit further, suppose I do not believe in *standard medicine* and instead believe homeopathic "medicine" should be covered instead. now explode it...I don't believe in doctors, only GAWD ALMIGHTY can heal his flock. now what? am I not forced to offer ANY healthcare? maybe just a pamphlet to church instead? :D

You are not. Businesses with under 50 employees do not have to offer any healthcare plan, and those over can opt to pay a tax penalty instead of offering any plan. So... yeah.

solidpumar said: Is my religious belief that humans shouldn't have health treatment whatsoever and should die if they get ill and are weaklings. ( I am satanist)  Can I impose my religious belief on my employees in America, denying coverage for everything?

Yes, by opting not to provide any health care plan at all.

SocialistSlayer said: How come companies like Google can actively promote. Campaign for. And pay for lgbt "rights" if the company has no rights?  Especially if they have employees apposed to it.  And since these companies have no rights. Can the government force them to hire anyone and everyone. To make certain products For certain prices? Or do they now have constitutional rights?    Any way I'm still waiting for a gym membership and a personal trainer to be a right. And my employer be forced to pay for it.  And while we are at it protein and other supplements seem like another health care right I should have.  It's amazing how many rights the left can invent while simultaneously trying to destroy the right to free agency

Because of the Citizens' United case. Well, more like because there were no laws stopping them from doing so, and then the ones that were proposed which may have curtailed such activities were declared unconstitutional by the five conservative Justices, but same dif.

Mr Khan said: Bullshit ruling, though fortunately it was narrowly defined to closely-held corporations, limiting the damage.

Was it? I'm increasingly thinking I need to read this thing, because at the moment I have no idea what the legal logic being employed here might be. Being closely-held shouldn't make any difference that I can think of...

kanageddaamen said: I have no problem with the classification of a corporation as a person, or the exercise of human rights by a corporation (free speech for corporations is something I completely agree with).  However, it IS purely an abstract legal construct.  There is no physical manifestation of a corporation.  It's existence is purely a legal matter, and should all the world governments come together collectively and say "Corporations no longer exist"  they would all immediately evaporate. They exist purely in a legal sense with no physical embodiment, hence they are purely an abstract legal construct, which is also legally a person. I have no problem with a corporation exercising any human rights, even freedom of religion.  However, in order to exercise that right, the corporation (which is a separate legal person from the owners) must have a religion to exercise.  It doesn't matter if the owners collectively have a religion, it does not transfer to the corporation.  Saying it does is like saying I am automatically a Christian if my parents are.   This is what separates the religious organizations, like churches, from for-profit corporations.  The religious organizations are constructed for religious purposes.  The corporation is constructed to provide legal protections to the owners If we are classifying corporations as their own person, then they must be treated as such, not as a mouthpiece for their owners.  If business owners want to wield their company as a tool for their religion then they should lose the legal protections of a corporation.   Forcing Hobby Lobby to "pay" for contraceptives (which they were NOT, they were providing health insurance as compensation to their employees,) IS NOT the same as forcing its shareholders to.  The two are not interchangeable (because the corporation is its own person.)  The corporation is the employer and the one providing the insurance, the shareholders are the ones who divide the profits of the corporation.  They are two very distinct things.

The corporation does not provide legal protections to its owners or shareholders. Only financial protection in terms of limited liability.

The board of directors/owners etc are still responsible for any and all offences a corporation makes. Senior management is considered to be the decision makers in regards to a company's culpability in an offence.

Your use of the analogy of parents and Christianity does not apply. Under United States law, a corporation is an organization of several people. You are not a collective of your parents but rather a separate concious entity. A corporation is simply a convenience to manage the affairs of several (sometimes thousands) people. It DOES have a physical embodiment: The corporation's owners/shareholders.

A corporation doesn't conduct business, own land, commit crimes in a void where an abstract concept can kill a person or commit manslaughter: A corporation is represented by the people who are associated with it.

For example, can we agree that Fox News is a conservative news network? It's  corporation, it doesn't have a political opinion....but because it is owned by conservative Rupert Murdoch and he employs conservatives to run it, it becomes a conservative news network. You support freedom of speech and religion for corporations but go on to say that since corporations cannot have religions, how can corporations exercise that right? Well...how can corporations have the right to free speech? They can only speak what their owners/employees say. How can a corporations own land? Because owners/employees go out and buy that land. How can corporations be sued? Because senior management takes responsibility for the corporation's actions.

noname2200 said: A corporation, simply put, is not an individual in any real sense of the word: why should it be granted the protections intended to safeguard individuals? Each of the people making up the corporation already has each of those rights, so what need is there for extending the protection for individuals to the fictitious entity which most of its members have little to no control over?

Because A:) A corporation is a collection of indivuals acting collectively to do business. Therefore, defining a corporation as a legal person is simply a legal fiction used to simplify the complex tasks of trying a group of thousands of people at the same time and B) Shareholders have direct control in proportion to their share in the company. Even a 1% share owner is directly part of this group.

Therefore, they should not be deprived of their consitutional rights when they act collectively.

noname2200 said: You are not. Businesses with under 50 employees do not have to offer any healthcare plan, and those over can opt to pay a tax penalty instead of offering any plan. So... yeah.

So he's correct. He's forced to pay for healthcare if he is coerced into doing it.

noname2200 said:   k   A   s Yes, by opting not to provide any health care plan at all. Mr Khan said: Bullshit ruling, though fortunately it was narrowly defined to closely-held corporations, limiting the damage. Was it? I'm increasingly thinking I need to read this thing, because at the moment I have no idea what the legal logic being employed here might be. Being closely-held shouldn't make any difference that I can think of...

In the real world of human biases, it was likely that this was the cost to get Anthony Kennedy on board with the ruling.

In the world of jurisprudence, it is because a closely-held corporation can more effectively state that the views of the corporation are the reflective of the views of its majority holders compared to a publically traded corporation. Some speculate that Hobby Lobby has effectively sold its own future up the river for this ruling, because now they can't sell stock on the NYSE without having to first relitigate this entire ordeal. Capital raises will be tricky for them in the future (not to mention the entire galaxy of bad press they brought down on themselves here).

Pregnancy not being a disease is irrelevant. These pills are not just for recreation. Much like viagra (which, as far as I've heard, no company has any moral objection covering) contraception is also used to deal with health issues OUTSIDE of sex and reproduction.

http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/other-reasons-to-take-the-pill

burning_phoneix said:   noname2200 said: A corporation, simply put, is not an individual in any real sense of the word: why should it be granted the protections intended to safeguard individuals? Each of the people making up the corporation already has each of those rights, so what need is there for extending the protection for individuals to the fictitious entity which most of its members have little to no control over?   Because A:) A corporation is a collection of indivuals acting collectively to do business. Therefore, defining a corporation as a legal person is simply a legal fiction used to simplify the complex tasks of trying a group of thousands of people at the same time and B) Shareholders have direct control in proportion to their share in the company. Even a 1% share owner is directly part of this group. Therefore, they should not be deprived of their consitutional rights when they act collectively. noname2200 said: You are not. Businesses with under 50 employees do not have to offer any healthcare plan, and those over can opt to pay a tax penalty instead of offering any plan. So... yeah. So he's correct. He's forced to pay for healthcare if he is coerced into doing it.

For the first part, none of that answers my question. Each of those individuals already has full constitutional rights, whether they act alone or as a group. They would in no way be "deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively." Could you please demonstrate how they would be?

 

For the second part: again, not really. Leaving aside how any employer large enough to hire fifty or more people is not going to be a sole proprietorship or general partnership, if the religious conviction is truly held, paying a tax penalty - which can cost less than actually paying for each employee's health plan - shouldn't be too high a hurdle for one's religious beliefs, right? It's already more accomodating than outright government prohibitions which violate some religions' beliefs, such as the ban on polygamy, or the enforcement of the apostasy laws for muslims. The analogy to the conscientious objector which was brought up earlier in this thread is useful here.

g911turbo said: DarkWraith said: that's avoiding the issue here. the fact is that employers DO have to provide a healthcare plan to their employees. so you need to address what type of offering is needed. you seem to be in agreement with all of my scenarios...that's alarming. some nutbag business owner can dictate that jesus can heal me when I get sick? the comparison is perfectly valid for the EXACT reasons I cited, this is a slippery slope. this abortion pill thing is a smokescreen for the opportunities this opens, I couldn't care less about the abortion pills. my concern is what other types of religious challenges will obtain. Bolded.  Shouldn't THAT be what alarms you?  You're willing to overlook the root of the problem to address a "slippery slope"? It is a slippery slope, I agree.... but speration of church and state is a lot easier when then state keeps its nose out of shit it shouldn't be in (in the first place).   Bold 2.  This is not a disease, it's a preventative measure for RECREATION.  But still, I agree slippery slope.  The best fix is to not force ANY insurance on anyone, and certainly not force it to be tied to an employer.  That way you can get an insurance plan that fits your needs.  Some include emergencies only (20s), some add preventative care (40s), and some even add preventative recreational measures, etc.  Free market!

I thought I was pretty clear about this. it's kinda like saying "man, I can't believe I have to pay taxes on my wages" since 19XX, wages weren't considered income prior to war times. it's a moot point, it's established already. same with healthcare at this point (or pay a fine as that dude said). essentially, the ruling is contingent upon the establishment of healthcare offerings, so why are you arguing about the foundation? makes no sense. I am in absolute agreement, healthcare should have nothing to do with your employer, but that is the world we live in so there is no point using that as a justification for this decision.

it's like I said already, I have no issue with non-coverage on these types of pills one bit, my concern is deep, it's the precedent that seems to have been put forth that could allow for a theocratic healthcare system.

Mr Khan said: noname2200 said: Mr Khan said: Bullshit ruling, though fortunately it was narrowly defined to closely-held corporations, limiting the damage. Was it? I'm increasingly thinking I need to read this thing, because at the moment I have no idea what the legal logic being employed here might be. Being closely-held shouldn't make any difference that I can think of... In the real world of human biases, it was likely that this was the cost to get Anthony Kennedy on board with the ruling. In the world of jurisprudence, it is because a closely-held corporation can more effectively state that the views of the corporation are the reflective of the views of its majority holders compared to a publically traded corporation. Some speculate that Hobby Lobby has effectively sold its own future up the river for this ruling, because now they can't sell stock on the NYSE without having to first relitigate this entire ordeal. Capital raises will be tricky for them in the future (not to mention the entire galaxy of bad press they brought down on themselves here).

Again though, a corporation is legally distinct and separate from all of its shareholders, even if those shareholders number just one. A corporation with just one stockholder can't be represented in court by said stockholder unless he/she is a licensed attorney, for example, and there are tax and liability penalties if the sole stockholder does not keep his/her finances separate and distinct from that of the corporation. This ruling seems wholly inconsistent with the very concept of a corporation to me: at least with decisions like Citizens United I could understand how the corporation is arguably going to have its own political interests to lobby for, but I'm utterly baffled at how a fictitious legal entity is going to hold any religious beliefs! How would we even test whether those claims are genuine, when the thing doesn't actually exist?

noname2200 said: Mr Khan said: In the real world of human biases, it was likely that this was the cost to get Anthony Kennedy on board with the ruling. In the world of jurisprudence, it is because a closely-held corporation can more effectively state that the views of the corporation are the reflective of the views of its majority holders compared to a publically traded corporation. Some speculate that Hobby Lobby has effectively sold its own future up the river for this ruling, because now they can't sell stock on the NYSE without having to first relitigate this entire ordeal. Capital raises will be tricky for them in the future (not to mention the entire galaxy of bad press they brought down on themselves here). Again though, a corporation is legally distinct and separate from all of its shareholders, even if those shareholders number just one. A corporation with just one stockholder can't be represented in court by said stockholder unless he/she is a licensed attorney, for example, and there are tax and liability penalties if the sole stockholder does not keep his/her finances separate and distinct from that of the corporation. This ruling seems wholly inconsistent with the very concept of a corporation to me: at least with decisions like Citizens United I could understand how the corporation is arguably going to have its own political interests to lobby for, but I'm utterly baffled at how a fictitious legal entity is going to hold any religious beliefs! How would we even test whether those claims are genuine, when the thing doesn't actually exist?

Yeah, the standards for scrutiny here are going to make this hard to uphold. If i were the Hobby Lobby employees, i'd sue to prove that their belief is "sincerely held".