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

[paperview]

Once again Conservatives applaud SHARIA!

Hip hip hurray! They say...

 

[The Rabbi]

Once again Conservatives applaud SHARIA!

Hip hip hurray! They say...

Because conservatives have supported Muslim causes, right?
Oh yeaj, you're an idiot and a lo lo so you don't know WTF you're talking about.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I doubt the OP's argument is what hobby lobby owners are trying to make. Corporations are run by humans and humans shouldn't be force to allocate corporate funds to pay for abortions. Humans on behalf of the corporation shouldn't have to agree with those ugly Obamacare rules. It violates their religious beliefs.

 

[The Rabbi]

I doubt the OP's argument is what hobby lobby owners are trying to make. Corporations are run by humans and humans shouldn't be force to allocate corporate funds to pay for abortions. Humans on behalf of the corporation shouldn't have to agree with those ugly Obamacare rules. It violates their religious beliefs.

Just like churches, etc do today. It is completely artificial to say this non profit corporation is entitled to rights while this for profit one forfeits its rights. There is no brief in the law for such a distinction.

 

[Edgetho]

Corporations are made up of people. People don't give up their Constitutional Rights when they incorporate.

So you can decide to not pay your taxes or not follow child labor laws, or safety regulations if you claim it is a part of your faith?

No, idiot.
The state must show a compelling interest in over riding religious objections. There are none here, of course.

Yup. The burden is on the Statists...er, er, er State.

That won't really matter to three of the Justices. They'd declare genocide Constitutional if a dimocrap were behind it.

I think the good guys win this one, 6 - 3. Maybe even 7-2. But I've been wrong before.

Although, not all that often

 

[paperview]

"And God formed corporations from the dust of the ground, and breathed into its CEOs a fear of women's rights…" - Genesis 2:7

 

[Moonglow]

So you can decide to not pay your taxes or not follow child labor laws, or safety regulations if you claim it is a part of your faith?

No, idiot.
The state must show a compelling interest in over riding religious objections. There are none here, of course.

Yup. The burden is on the Statists...er, er, er State.

That won't really matter to three of the Justices. They'd declare genocide Constitutional if a dimocrap were behind it.

I think the good guys win this one, 6 - 3. Maybe even 7-2. But I've been wrong before.

Although, not all that often

Except that one time you thought you were wrong, but was wrong about that?

 

[The Rabbi]

"And God formed corporations from the dust of the ground, and breathed into its CEOs a fear of women's rights…" - Genesis 2:7

The sun rises, the sun sets. And the jackass brays on.

 

[Edgetho]

"And God formed corporations from the dust of the ground, and breathed into its CEOs a fear of women's rights…" - Genesis 2:7

The sun rises, the sun sets. And the jackass brays on.

They're all the same..... scumbags.

 

[Mustang]

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?

In some early science fiction stories, humans kept evolving into a higher life form. It was an interesting concept. Unfortunately for the human race, corporations will get there LONG before humans do since they've already risen to be the equal of human beings, and they don't die.

Therefore, >I< predict that corporations will rise to the level of deity before too long. I mean, they already have everlasting life which is something human beings supposedly attain only after death, but corporations have it here on our 'corporeal' plane of existence. If the GOP has their way, we'll be worshiping corporations some day, probably in the form of some corporate tax-exempt megachurch.

 

[initforme]

So is their gripe against paying for contraception? I can understand not paying for it. But why do they see contraception as a bad thing? I'm not talking about abortion of which I am no fan. But when it comes to contraception, I think that a married couple who choses not to have children and both agree on it are both brave and courageous. Is there another way to look at it?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I doubt the OP's argument is what hobby lobby owners are trying to make. Corporations are run by humans and humans shouldn't be force to allocate corporate funds to pay for abortions. Humans on behalf of the corporation shouldn't have to agree with those ugly Obamacare rules. It violates their religious beliefs.

Just like churches, etc do today. It is completely artificial to say this non profit corporation is entitled to rights while this for profit one forfeits its rights. There is no brief in the law for such a distinction.

So Payperview, the OP, is full of shit cheering on this liberal agenda against Christian run businesses? Some people won't rest until everyone is required to pay for the murder of someone else's innocent baby.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I doubt the OP's argument is what hobby lobby owners are trying to make. Corporations are run by humans and humans shouldn't be force to allocate corporate funds to pay for abortions. Humans on behalf of the corporation shouldn't have to agree with those ugly Obamacare rules. It violates their religious beliefs.

Please feel free to make this ‘argument’ before the Court.

And once again we see the ignorance of the law common to most on the right.

The primary focus of this provision of the ACA is to ensure that working Americans have comprehensive and affordable access to healthcare, not to interfere with religious practice. Moreover, because the provision does not manifest a substantial burden to exercising a person’s religious beliefs, no religious liberty is being ‘violated.’ And the provision is Constitutional as it indeed pursues a compelling government interest.

Consequently, opposition by conservatives to the Act’s provision is purely partisan, having nothing to do with the merits of the ACA or the Constitution and its case law.

 

[rightwinger]

I doubt the OP's argument is what hobby lobby owners are trying to make. Corporations are run by humans and humans shouldn't be force to allocate corporate funds to pay for abortions. Humans on behalf of the corporation shouldn't have to agree with those ugly Obamacare rules. It violates their religious beliefs.

I think we are crossing a line with corporations that we do not want to go

Corporations are comprised of people...they are not people

They do not have feelings, they do not have souls. They are interested in making money. Corporations do not vote. They should not be making decisions on the morality of their employees if employees are following the law

Contraception should be a decision of the employee. The employee should make the decision on their use of birth control. Employees are people....corporations are not

 

[initforme]

What is so bad about contraception? Please explain.

 

[rightwinger]

Corporations are made up of people. People don't give up their Constitutional Rights when they incorporate.

So you can decide to not pay your taxes or not follow child labor laws, or safety regulations if you claim it is a part of your faith?

No, idiot.
The state must show a compelling interest in over riding religious objections. There are none here, of course.

The state has a compelling interest to ensure affordable birth control is available to its citizens

Hobby Lobby must show it has a compelling interest to control the birth control decisions of its employees

 

[paperview]

I doubt the OP's argument is what hobby lobby owners are trying to make. Corporations are run by humans and humans shouldn't be force to allocate corporate funds to pay for abortions. Humans on behalf of the corporation shouldn't have to agree with those ugly Obamacare rules. It violates their religious beliefs.

Just like churches, etc do today. It is completely artificial to say this non profit corporation is entitled to rights while this for profit one forfeits its rights. There is no brief in the law for such a distinction.

So Payperview, the OP, is full of shit cheering on this liberal agenda against Christian run businesses? Some people won't rest until everyone is required to pay for the murder of someone else's innocent baby.

 

[initforme]

What is wrong with contraception. Please explain.

 

[rightwinger]

What is wrong with contraception. Please explain.

It encourages people to have sex and sex is dirty

 

[initforme]

Ohhhh I see. But if it prevents pregnancy then that is a good thing is it not?