SB1062, Hobby Lobs...Religious Exemptions Q: Do Corporations have Religious Beliefs?

[paperview]

Corporations are people, my friend. That's the line, as we have all heard it. Citizens United basically affirmed it.

Generally, this has been applied to political speech, nonetheless, it provides Freedom of Speech to Corporations -- but the question is: Are Corporations persons that can have a sincerely held religious belief?

In the recent mishmash of that ill-begotten AZ bill SB1062, one aspect was little touched on, mainly this:

See that there? What has been defined as a "Person" was amended to not only include "a religious assembly or institution" but also:

"ANY INDIVIDUAL, ASSOCIATION, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, CHURCH, RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY, OR INSTITUTION, ESTATE, TRUST, FOUNDATION OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY."

SB1062 - 512R - I Ver

The definition there is far broader in scope and applicability in that Corporations, et al, could have discriminated if they held sincerely held religious beliefs.

Which brings us to the recent SCOTUS cases up soon involving Hobby Lobby v Sebelius - and the other entities that are suing to be able to deny specific contraceptive coverage on religious beliefs grounds.

We are at crossroad where not only are for-profit corporate commercial entities and organizations considered to be persons regarding Freedom of Speech, but now the trend is to carve out laws to give these Corporations Freedom of Religion.

How do Corporations, fictitious persons under the law - practice religion? Can they go to Church? Do they partake in sacraments?
Should they be protected fully as a person under the cherished Free Exercise clause?


Do you think this trend to be something good for America?

 

[OriginalShroom]

As long as Corporations as taxed as persons, then they have the rights afforded them as persons.

Their personhood is a legal fiction that was invented to be able to tax them.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The bottom line is ObamaCare should have never been passed in the first place. It is grossly unconstitutional, regardless of what dirt they dug up on Justice Roberts in order to extort him into providing a majority vote, and it's a serious intrusion into people's privacy. Were it not for that we would not be discussing this issue in the first place. Over bearing government is what caused all of this to happen and that's what needs changed.

 

[Katzndogz]

You are confusing the rights of a corporation with the rights of the individuals who run the corporation. Must an individual pay for someone else's chosen birth control method or do they lost their rights upon being part of a corporate entity?

 

[paperview]

Religious beliefs and devotions are formed in the “minds and hearts of individuals,” so said a recent court ruling.

How far can a fictitious entity that is invisible, intangible, existing only in contemplation of law and formed to create profits for it's shareholders go in exercising it's Freedom of Religion?

All the way, just as if it were a flesh and blood, mind and heart individual?

 

[KNB]

Considering that the Catholic church is widely considered to be the largest corporation on Earth, it isn't too far fetched to think that a corporation can become a religion. Corporatism is basically a religion on Wall Street now.

Maybe I'll start a new religion and call it Corporatology- the belief that corporations are successful because they are ran by supreme beings from outer space. Corporatology states that taxation and regulations of any kind are a threat to religious freedom, and the corporate gods who pay monthly tithes to my church can cite the 1st Amendment to escape the crushing taxes and EPA burdens imposed on them by an unworthy society.

 

[paperview]

Considering that the Catholic church is widely considered to be the largest corporation on Earth, it isn't too far fetched to think that a corporation can become a religion. Corporatism is basically a religion on Wall Street now.

Maybe I'll start a new religion and call it Corporatology- the belief that corporations are successful because they are ran by supreme beings from outer space. Corporatology states that taxation and regulations of any kind are a threat to religious freedom, and the corporate gods who pay monthly tithes to my church can cite the 1st Amendment to escape the crushing taxes and EPA burdens imposed on them by an unworthy society.

Corporatology.

I like that. I really like that.

 

[Darkwind]

I'd start a new religion for progressives, but I don't think it could compete with 'governmentism'

Ah well....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You are confusing the rights of a corporation with the rights of the individuals who run the corporation. Must an individual pay for someone else's chosen birth control method or do they lost their rights upon being part of a corporate entity?

It doesn’t make any difference – whether corporations have the same rights as individuals, or if the question concerns the religious rights of individual corporate officers, as long as the primary focus and effect of a given measure is not to disadvantage religious freedom, which is the case with the ACA, no religious rights have been violated (Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)).

That a ‘Christian business’ perceives the requirement that it must afford comprehensive health insurance to its employees, including that of birth control, does not mean it’s being compelled to ‘violate’ its religious tenets, as the primary focus of the law is health insurance coverage, not prohibiting a given religious practice.

 

[KNB]

I'd start a new religion for progressives, but I don't think it could compete with 'governmentism'

Ah well....

Progressives have their own religion. It's called "science".

 

[NYcarbineer]

If this sort of religious exemption were legitimate, a Muslim who got hired to work at a convenience store could refuse to sell alcohol, claiming it as his religious belief, and the store wouldn't be able to fire him; they would have to either refrain from selling alcohol on his shift, or call in another person just to do it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'd start a new religion for progressives, but I don't think it could compete with 'governmentism'

Ah well....

Nuts on the right have been claiming for decades that 'secular humanism' is a religion. Fine.

Secular humanism is a religion with one of its beliefs being that homosexuals are equal to heterosexuals in all matters.

Now, if you want to discriminate against gays, they are protected against that by your vaunted religious freedom.

Fair enough?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Religious beliefs and devotions are formed in the “minds and hearts of individuals,” so said a recent court ruling.

How far can a fictitious entity that is invisible, intangible, existing only in contemplation of law and formed to create profits for it's shareholders go in exercising it's Freedom of Religion?

All the way, just as if it were a flesh and blood, mind and heart individual?

Let’s assume that they are, they’d still be subject to the same Equal Protection Clause/Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence of private citizens, where although the rights enshrined in the First Amendment are inalienable, they are not absolute, and subject to reasonable regulatory measures and restrictions by government as are other rights.

And in the case of the ACA, the health insurance requirement is reasonable and appropriate, as it in no way ‘violates’ the religious rights of the corporate entity, just as would be the case with a private individual.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

For-Profit corporations, by law (see Ford v Dodge), have bottom lines and maximizing shareholder value, and they are Amoral.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Religious beliefs and devotions are formed in the “minds and hearts of individuals,” so said a recent court ruling.

How far can a fictitious entity that is invisible, intangible, existing only in contemplation of law and formed to create profits for it's shareholders go in exercising it's Freedom of Religion?

All the way, just as if it were a flesh and blood, mind and heart individual?

How is an existing business or cooperation fictitious?

All you're really saying is that the government should be able to direct the aspirations or moral will of any organization for profit . . . according to your individual worldview.

Oh, shut up.

Ultimately, that’s precisely what you’re advocating.

Your distinction is utterly arbitrary and tyrannical.

If the government can force corporations to violate the terms of their business model or collective moral conscious, it can force the individual at the small-business level in the marketplace to do the same.

And why should it stop there?

Instead of using the government’s, get a gun of your own and see how far you get.

What if the government, essentially a corporate individual itself, should dictate that a for profit enterprise set up concentration camps and exterminate persons declared to be ethnically dangerous or ideological terrorists?

Let’s cut to the chase, you statist bootlick of the Marxist persuasion, if you want to kill unborn babies, for example, or redistribute assets in some healthcare ponzi scheme, create your own corporation of idiots and do it on your own dime. Mind your own business. Take your own risks and keep the consequences to yourself.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Religious beliefs and devotions are formed in the “minds and hearts of individuals,” so said a recent court ruling.

How far can a fictitious entity that is invisible, intangible, existing only in contemplation of law and formed to create profits for it's shareholders go in exercising it's Freedom of Religion?

All the way, just as if it were a flesh and blood, mind and heart individual?

Let’s assume that they are, they’d still be subject to the same Equal Protection Clause/Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence of private citizens, where although the rights enshrined in the First Amendment are inalienable, they are not absolute, and subject to reasonable regulatory measures and restrictions by government as are other rights.

And in the case of the ACA, the health insurance requirement is reasonable and appropriate, as it in no way ‘violates’ the religious rights of the corporate entity, just as would be the case with a private individual.

The hell it doesn't! So you're claiming there's no chance that certain ACA mandates won't be struck down in the Little Sisters and Hobby Lobby cases?

 

[paperview]

Religious beliefs and devotions are formed in the “minds and hearts of individuals,” so said a recent court ruling.

How far can a fictitious entity that is invisible, intangible, existing only in contemplation of law and formed to create profits for it's shareholders go in exercising it's Freedom of Religion?

All the way, just as if it were a flesh and blood, mind and heart individual?

How is an existing business or cooperation fictitious?
...

The personhood of that Corporation is a fictitious legal contrivance.

It's not a literal flesh and blood person, is it?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Corporations are people, my friend. That's the line, as we have all heard it. Citizens United basically affirmed it.

Generally, this has been applied to political speech, nonetheless, it provides Freedom of Speech to Corporations -- but the question is: Are Corporations persons that can have a sincerely held religious belief?

In the recent mishmash of that ill-begotten AZ bill SB1062, one aspect was little touched on, mainly this:

See that there? What has been defined as a "Person" was amended to not only include "a religious assembly or institution" but also:

"ANY INDIVIDUAL, ASSOCIATION, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, CHURCH, RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY, OR INSTITUTION, ESTATE, TRUST, FOUNDATION OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY."

SB1062 - 512R - I Ver

The definition there is far broader in scope and applicability in that Corporations, et al, could have discriminated if they held sincerely held religious beliefs.

Which brings us to the recent SCOTUS cases up soon involving Hobby Lobby v Sebelius - and the other entities that are suing to be able to deny specific contraceptive coverage on religious beliefs grounds.

We are at crossroad where not only are for-profit corporate commercial entities and organizations considered to be persons regarding Freedom of Speech, but now the trend is to carve out laws to give these Corporations Freedom of Religion.

How do Corporations, fictitious persons under the law - practice religion? Can they go to Church? Do they partake in sacraments?
Should they be protected fully as a person under the cherished Free Exercise clause?


Do you think this trend to be something good for America?

the owners do, and it's tyranny to force such things upon them.

that was easy

 

[paperview]

Maybe this will help:

A corporation is a fictitious person, literally.
No heart, no mind, no flesh, no blood, a legal fiction for legal purposes.

Persona ficta -- Legal personality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Kosh]

I'd start a new religion for progressives, but I don't think it could compete with 'governmentism'

Ah well....

Progressives have their own religion. It's called "science".

Wrong! It is called propaganda as you keep showing with every far left Obama drone post you make.