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

[The Rabbi]

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?

Not true. A commonly held corporation, meaning an entity that is owned primrily by the public at large, is amoral and non religious, for the simple reason that it is an inanimate object, with no ability to reason or believe. All of the persons working at a public corporation are employees of that corportation, including the CEO and the board of directors. The employer is an everchanging collection of stockholders, few of which have any say in the operation of the corporation.

However, there are corporations which are owned by a single individual, a family, or a small group of like minded individuals. These corporations can, and often do, exhibit the morality and the religious beliefs of the private owners, just like any other individual business owner or partnership. Hobby Lobby and the Green family fall into this group, and that is what the court is debating.

The right of a public corporation to freedom of speech, does not equate in any way to the right of a public corporation to freedom of religion.

It is a violation of the 1st Amendment for the SCOTUS to endorse the religious beliefs of any person irrespective of whether or not that is an individual or a corporation.

^^
Lo-Lo poster in action.

 

[The Rabbi]

This would only be the case if the rigged up some kind of ad hoc exclusion. If, instead, they strike down the contraception mandate, for everyone, it's a moot concern.

So every woman must be denied a healthcare benefit because of the religious beliefs of a few?

What? No. Where did you get that out of my post?

It doesnt matter. Libs are absolutely unglued. Next there will be mandatory burkas at work, stonings in the street. They have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Fact? Reason? Precedents? Fuhgeddaboutit.

 

[Derideo_Te]

This would only be the case if the rigged up some kind of ad hoc exclusion. If, instead, they strike down the contraception mandate, for everyone, it's a moot concern.

So every woman must be denied a healthcare benefit because of the religious beliefs of a few?

What? No. Where did you get that out of my post?

Right here;

they strike down the contraception mandate, for everyone

 

[dblack]

So every woman must be denied a healthcare benefit because of the religious beliefs of a few?

What? No. Where did you get that out of my post?

Right here;

they strike down the contraception mandate, for everyone

You don't see the difference between striking down a mandate and denying every woman a benefit? Really? If not, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[The Rabbi]

So every woman must be denied a healthcare benefit because of the religious beliefs of a few?

What? No. Where did you get that out of my post?

Right here;

they strike down the contraception mandate, for everyone

Because if gov't doesnt mandate it no one will offer it, right?

 

[Derideo_Te]

What? No. Where did you get that out of my post?

Right here;

they strike down the contraception mandate, for everyone

You don't see the difference between striking down a mandate and denying every woman a benefit? Really? If not, I don't know what to tell you.

By striking down the contraception mandate it will mean that women will be forced to pay for it rather than it being a part of their healthcare coverage. That is an onerous burden given that 2/3rds of all minimum wage earners are women and yes, that is a denial of a benefit to all women with the most vulnerable suffering the most. Why must minimum wage earners be made to suffer for the religious beliefs of a minority?

 

[The Rabbi]

Right here;

You don't see the difference between striking down a mandate and denying every woman a benefit? Really? If not, I don't know what to tell you.

By striking down the contraception mandate it will mean that women will be forced to pay for it rather than it being a part of their healthcare coverage. That is an onerous burden given that 2/3rds of all minimum wage earners are women and yes, that is a denial of a benefit to all women with the most vulnerable suffering the most. Why must minimum wage earners be made to suffer for the religious beliefs of a minority?

More idiocy from the lo-los.
Most companies will continue to provide contraception coverage. For those that dont contraception costs less than going to Starbucks once a week. For those who can't afford that there are free clinics supplying the stuff.
And fwiw you don't give a shit about poor women but will use them to advance your agenda.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You don't see the difference between striking down a mandate and denying every woman a benefit? Really? If not, I don't know what to tell you.

By striking down the contraception mandate it will mean that women will be forced to pay for it rather than it being a part of their healthcare coverage. That is an onerous burden given that 2/3rds of all minimum wage earners are women and yes, that is a denial of a benefit to all women with the most vulnerable suffering the most. Why must minimum wage earners be made to suffer for the religious beliefs of a minority?

More idiocy from the lo-los.
Most companies will continue to provide contraception coverage. For those that dont contraception costs less than going to Starbucks once a week. For those who can't afford that there are free clinics supplying the stuff.
And fwiw you don't give a shit about poor women but will use them to advance your agenda.

When you learn how to engage in civil discourse you will be permitted to join the discussion. Until then your opinion will be treated with the contempt it deserves. You have received more than sufficient warnings from me in the past. There won't be any more.

 

[The Rabbi]

By striking down the contraception mandate it will mean that women will be forced to pay for it rather than it being a part of their healthcare coverage. That is an onerous burden given that 2/3rds of all minimum wage earners are women and yes, that is a denial of a benefit to all women with the most vulnerable suffering the most. Why must minimum wage earners be made to suffer for the religious beliefs of a minority?

More idiocy from the lo-los.
Most companies will continue to provide contraception coverage. For those that dont contraception costs less than going to Starbucks once a week. For those who can't afford that there are free clinics supplying the stuff.
And fwiw you don't give a shit about poor women but will use them to advance your agenda.

When you learn how to engage in civil discourse you will be permitted to join the discussion. Until then your opinion will be treated with the contempt it deserves. You have received more than sufficient warnings from me in the past. There won't be any more.

translation: He's kicking my butt so I'll act butt hurt.

Your facts are wrong. Your arguments are wrong. And basically you suck as a poster on this site.

 

[dblack]

Right here;

You don't see the difference between striking down a mandate and denying every woman a benefit? Really? If not, I don't know what to tell you.

By striking down the contraception mandate it will mean that women will be forced to pay for it rather than it being a part of their healthcare coverage. That is an onerous burden given that 2/3rds of all minimum wage earners are women and yes, that is a denial of a benefit to all women with the most vulnerable suffering the most. Why must minimum wage earners be made to suffer for the religious beliefs of a minority?

No, it would only be a 'denial' to employees of companies that choose insurance that doesn't include the contraceptives in question. And even then nothing is being forced on them, they can choose to work for a company that does offer such coverage if they wish, or buy the coverage themselves rather than rely on an employer. Again, if you can't see the radical difference between these two scenarios (striking down a mandate for coverage, and denying a benefit to 'all women'), then I'm not sure where to go from there.

 

[The Rabbi]

WHy does anyone need insurance coverage to cover the cost of something that is already cheap and affordable?

 

[dblack]

WHy does anyone need insurance coverage to cover the cost of something that is already cheap and affordable?

That's the delusion behind about half our dysfunction with insurance. Somehow we've bought into this notion that insurance is a reasonable way to finance regular expenses, which is just flat-out stupid - whether it's mandated coverage, single payer, or whatever. The way to manage regular expenses is to budget for them. Insurance is for unexpected calamities. Using insurance to pay for health maintenance is like putting your utility bills on the credit card. Worse actually.

 

[regent]

My neighbors and I are forming a new religion, a religion that is against paying taxes to any government entity that does not believe as we do. It's a sort of 'Do we believe" tax idea. We should be grateful if the Court approves of this new concept, I mean that a citizen only pays taxes to those government entities that believes as the taxpayer believes. The big question now is will the Court find according to our new religion or go back to that old First Amendment and everyone is equal crap?

 

[dblack]

My neighbors and I are forming a new religion, a religion that is against paying taxes to any government entity that does not believe as we do. It's a sort of 'Do we believe" tax idea. We should be grateful if the Court approves of this new concept, I mean that a citizen only pays taxes to those government entities that believes as the taxpayer believes. The big question now is will the Court find according to our new religion or go back to that old First Amendment and everyone is equal crap?

Exactly. This is the misconception so many have about the first amendment's religious protection. It's not there to give religions a pass on following the law, and it shouldn't be used as an excuse to grant special exemptions. It's there to keep government from persecuting religions by target their practices or beliefs with legal prohibitions.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You don't see the difference between striking down a mandate and denying every woman a benefit? Really? If not, I don't know what to tell you.

By striking down the contraception mandate it will mean that women will be forced to pay for it rather than it being a part of their healthcare coverage. That is an onerous burden given that 2/3rds of all minimum wage earners are women and yes, that is a denial of a benefit to all women with the most vulnerable suffering the most. Why must minimum wage earners be made to suffer for the religious beliefs of a minority?

No, it would only be a 'denial' to employees of companies that choose insurance that doesn't include the contraceptives in question. And even then nothing is being forced on them, they can choose to work for a company that does offer such coverage if they wish, or buy the coverage themselves rather than rely on an employer. Again, if you can't see the radical difference between these two scenarios (striking down a mandate for coverage, and denying a benefit to 'all women'), then I'm not sure where to go from there.

Let's approach this from a different direction and see if we can sort it out that way. If you grant a corporation the right to free speech and religious beliefs what is to stop it from having other rights, such as the right to vote? Please explain why a corporation should be denied the right to vote?

 

[Derideo_Te]

More idiocy from the lo-los.
Most companies will continue to provide contraception coverage. For those that dont contraception costs less than going to Starbucks once a week. For those who can't afford that there are free clinics supplying the stuff.
And fwiw you don't give a shit about poor women but will use them to advance your agenda.

When you learn how to engage in civil discourse you will be permitted to join the discussion. Until then your opinion will be treated with the contempt it deserves. You have received more than sufficient warnings from me in the past. There won't be any more.

translation: He's kicking my butt so I'll act butt hurt.

Your facts are wrong. Your arguments are wrong. And basically you suck as a poster on this site.

Ironic!

 

[dblack]

By striking down the contraception mandate it will mean that women will be forced to pay for it rather than it being a part of their healthcare coverage. That is an onerous burden given that 2/3rds of all minimum wage earners are women and yes, that is a denial of a benefit to all women with the most vulnerable suffering the most. Why must minimum wage earners be made to suffer for the religious beliefs of a minority?

No, it would only be a 'denial' to employees of companies that choose insurance that doesn't include the contraceptives in question. And even then nothing is being forced on them, they can choose to work for a company that does offer such coverage if they wish, or buy the coverage themselves rather than rely on an employer. Again, if you can't see the radical difference between these two scenarios (striking down a mandate for coverage, and denying a benefit to 'all women'), then I'm not sure where to go from there.

Let's approach this from a different direction and see if we can sort it out that way. If you grant a corporation the right to free speech and religious beliefs what is to stop it from having other rights, such as the right to vote? Please explain why a corporation should be denied the right to vote?

I don't see how corporate personhood enters into it. The mandate applies to all for profit businesses above a certain size, incorporated or otherwise.

 

[Derideo_Te]

No, it would only be a 'denial' to employees of companies that choose insurance that doesn't include the contraceptives in question. And even then nothing is being forced on them, they can choose to work for a company that does offer such coverage if they wish, or buy the coverage themselves rather than rely on an employer. Again, if you can't see the radical difference between these two scenarios (striking down a mandate for coverage, and denying a benefit to 'all women'), then I'm not sure where to go from there.

Let's approach this from a different direction and see if we can sort it out that way. If you grant a corporation the right to free speech and religious beliefs what is to stop it from having other rights, such as the right to vote? Please explain why a corporation should be denied the right to vote?

I don't see how corporate personhood enters into it. The mandate applies to all for profit businesses above a certain size, incorporated or otherwise.

Hobby lobby is arguing that their large for profit corporation should be exempted on the basis of the religious beliefs of the owners. Scalia argued that much yesterday. If a corporation has religious rights and free speech rights then it stands to reason that it should be entitled to voting rights. Please explain why a corporation should be denied voting rights. Alternatively just concede that corporations should have the same voting rights that you do and we can move on to the next point.

 

[dblack]

Let's approach this from a different direction and see if we can sort it out that way. If you grant a corporation the right to free speech and religious beliefs what is to stop it from having other rights, such as the right to vote? Please explain why a corporation should be denied the right to vote?

I don't see how corporate personhood enters into it. The mandate applies to all for profit businesses above a certain size, incorporated or otherwise.

Hobby lobby is arguing that their large for profit corporation should be exempted on the basis of the religious beliefs of the owners. Scalia argued that much yesterday. If a corporation has religious rights and free speech rights then it stands to reason that it should be entitled to voting rights. Please explain why a corporation should be denied voting rights. Alternatively just concede that corporations should have the same voting rights that you do and we can move on to the next point.

Can't help you there. As I've said, I don't think corporate personhood is salient to the Constitutionality of the contraceptive mandate. Neither is religion, for that matter. But I'm not on the legal team and, for some bizarre reason, they've haven't called me for my opinion (yet).

 

[Derideo_Te]

I don't see how corporate personhood enters into it. The mandate applies to all for profit businesses above a certain size, incorporated or otherwise.

Hobby lobby is arguing that their large for profit corporation should be exempted on the basis of the religious beliefs of the owners. Scalia argued that much yesterday. If a corporation has religious rights and free speech rights then it stands to reason that it should be entitled to voting rights. Please explain why a corporation should be denied voting rights. Alternatively just concede that corporations should have the same voting rights that you do and we can move on to the next point.

Can't help you there. As I've said, I don't think corporate personhood is salient to the Constitutionality of the contraceptive mandate. Neither is religion, for that matter. But I'm not on the legal team and, for some bizarre reason, they've haven't called me for my opinion (yet).

Since you are conceding that corporations would be entitled to voting rights on the same basis as granting them free speech and religious belief rights we can take that as the basis for the next point.

Given that corporations can be granted voting rights how many corporations would it take to alter the outcome of an election? Who has the funds to register all of these corporations? Who would control the results of every election going forward?