kanageddaamen said:
-CraZed- said:
VanceIX said:
-CraZed- said:
VanceIX said:
Scisca said:
Why the fuck would your employer be forced to buy you contraception!? My God! America, what the fuck is wrong with you? |
Why are corporations treated as churches now?
|
So your religious freedoms stop at churches do they? Just because you run a business or a corporation (which does not even necessarily mean you are a big powerful evil greedy entity, ma and pop operations regularly incorporate to protect their personal assets through corporate holdings) doesn't mean you should be forced to provide for those who work for you with contraceptives or anything else for that matter other than a mutally agreed on wage and providing as safe a work environment as possible.
Corporations are made up of people just like any other organization. Why should they be treated any differently in regards to their Constitutional rights? I know, I know because money right? Yeah Gates, Buffet, Soros they have more money each than a majority of the registered corporate entities of this country and they spend tons of money on political causes.
No corporations aren't a person. They are however, people.
|
Exactly. People, as in plural. Whose to say that everyone in a corporation follows the same beliefs as the board of the corporation does? With this law, unless you are at the top level, you must adhere to the religous beliefs of your workplace. It's not just the birth-control at risk here.
If a corporation decides to identify itself as Islamic, can they force employees to wear hijabs? If a corporation is Hindu, can they force employees to stay away from beef? If a corporation is Christian, can they force everyone to have a Bible?
An ordinary person cannot force their beliefs on anyone. This ruling is saying that if that "person" was corporation, they can.
|
If they want to work for them? Sure, why not? If you work at McDonalds do you not have to wear their uniforms? You join the military you wear a uniform. You work for an auto mechanic you are wearing a unifrom. A sports team? Uniform. You are conforming to standards of dress all the time for work. WHy? Because the owners of the business want to convey a certain look that appeals to it's customers.
I think what you are saying is a stretch with the hijab, but I would say employers can even ban the wear of them so why not require them? Every business has the right to ask it's employees to present a certain appearance. What is different between an Islamic business that caters to Muslims in a traditional sense than say a strip joint that that presents an opposite environment. They'd probably fire a woman who came out dressed from head to toe and refused to strip it off would they not (unless that made the joint tons of money then I'm sure they'd be fine with it)?
Now if we are talking one of those evil, greedy corporations forcing you to be employed by them (indenturement or slavery) and wearing what they say every single minute of every single day on the job or not , worshiping their chosen deity then we have a problem.
By that same token I find it just fine if an evil, greedy corporation is atheistic and wants no mention of God or religious activity within their organization, while on the job, then they have the right to ask those religious employees to keep it to themselves while on the clock or be fired.
It says no such thing. It says an orginization cannot be forced to support something they do not believe in. In fact it says the opposite. It in no way prohibits employers from covering contraceptives if they so choose it just doesn't allow the government to force entities who have religious objections to provide them. Which is in keeping with the 1st amendment of the US Constitution.
I find it intellectually distressing that people are okay with enforcing a lack of religious expression but not the other way around. Not to say I am in favor of enforcing religious beliefs, but that the fervor in which the anti religious crowd has for scrubbing religion from every where but ones most private domain (their home, which even these days isn't so private) just as wrong as a Theocracy. They are two extreme sides of the same dishonest coin.
If you don't believe in God or pratice religion great for you and you should in no way be forced to do so. But to say that because religion is everywhere you look because a majority of others choose to engage on religion is not tantamount to infringement on your right to be an atheist. And neither is giving an employer who objects to abortive contraceptives the right to say we will not pay for your access to them.
|
I think he was speaking of: Can the employer force this things IN THE EMPLOYEES' PRIVATE LIVES.
The use of contraceptives is a private action with no bearing on the operation of the business. It is a personal choice (like not wearing a hijab, eating beef, or not owning a bible) that is of no consequence to the business entity. The employers are not forced to pass out contraceptives, or allow employees to go around passing them out while operating as an employee of the company.
But this is all moot. The employer is NOT THE OWNERS (ie share holders) OF THE CORPORATION! it is the CORPORATION itself, and the interests and beliefs of the former do not automatically transfer to the latter. If the Shareholders of Hobby Lobby do not want the Employees of Hobby Lobby to use contraceptives, they can use their first amendment rights to SAY that. They can't however leverage the corporation to do their bidding. If the shareholders want the corporation to pay off their mortgage, the corporation does not automatically have that desire too, and it is infact a violation that will strip the corporate legal protections from the owners if they do so. You cannot comingle the person interests of the owners with the business interests of the corporation.
The only way this is a Religious Rights issue is if the CORPORATION ITSELF has religious objections to the action. And how can it? How can an abstract legal entity be concerned with it soul, its damnnation, sin, forgiveness, etc etc etc. These things apply no more to a corporation than they do to the quadratic formula. Saying a corporation has a religion is like saying a corporation can wield a pistol. It makes no sense. That is why the religious freedoms of the first ammendment applying to the corporation make as much sense as the 2nd ammendment rights to bear arms. A purely legal entity cannot do these things.
Since we can conclude that a corporation cannot have a religion, it then follows that a corporation can't have religious objections to actions. Hence the problem with all of this.
You make an example of an atheist forbidding actions during work. That is not a fair comparison. What would be is if a closely owned atheist corporation forbade its employees from donating money to church or organizations that support religious activities, and that, I GUARANTEE, would not pass this supreme court, hence a preferential treatment for religion over non-religion.
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have the legal protections a corporation provides as a separate legal entity AND have the company forward your personal agenda.
|
Currently Online 
