Supreme Court justice; RBG; displays ignorance of Constitution

[kanageddaamen]

burning_phoneix said:

kanageddaamen said:

binary solo said:

You shouldn't bother. For these types of people govt = bad and all thinking and subtlety stops there. They swallow the right wing talking points without critical analysis. Because govt makes laws it must also follow that laws are bad, so why bother understadning the finer points of the law. So do not try to explain why owners and corporations are not the same thing, or the corporations cannot have religious beliefs, or subtleties like what is a direct business interest and what is the private interest of the individuals who make up the business (owners and staff).

Remember govt = evil, regulation = bad, there is nothing more to be said.

Yeah, I have.  I think I have given a pretty solid explination why this ruling is clearly the wrong one legally, logically, and morally, yet have gotten zero replies from the individuals that agree with the decision.

A perfect example of what Bill Maher calls the conservative bubble.  Any clear, critical analysis that runs counter to what they want to believe is roundly ignored.

It is frustrating though.  I am a definite moderate.  I have sensible conservative friends and family who will listen to arguments, concede points, raise points that I haven't thought about, and generally provide an intelligent discourse for finding solutions to problems.  Unfortunately they are not the conservative majority (or even a large minority,)  the vast number of conservatives being as you describe.

The conservative radicalization is what has derailed this country, and I hope it implodes under its own ignorance soon enough.

Your point was that a corpration cannot have a religion per se and therefore they cannot deny people coverage based on the religious beliefs of their shareholders, correct?

Well for all intents and purposes,  corpration is not an "abstract legal entity". It is considered a person in the eyes of the law. A corpration can excercise human rights against real people (at least according to the European Court of Human Rights, the US Supreme Court and the South African Constitution, probably a lot more) hence Hobby Lobby's right to sue that its human rights were being violated as per the first amendment.

As how an "abstract legal entity" (which is not abstract and is a legal person not an "entity") can have religious beliefs, the US recobngizes corprations as organizations of natural persons (IE real, not artificial people) and therefore cannot curtail their constitutional rights when they act collectively. Therefore, forcing Hobby Lobby to provide contraception in violation of Hobby Lobby's shareholder's religious beliefs is unconstitutional.

 

And for the record, I'm not a person who thinks government=bad regulation= bad.

In fact, I support free healthcare provided by the government for all citizens of a nation in addition to tighter regulations regarding Gun Control and banking.

I just think that the ACA is a very lazy piece of legislation.

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.