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

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course it is...it's Heritage Foundation. Duh.

The liberal plan is single payer. The Democratic plan was a Public Option. We got the GOP Heritage plan and because President Obama did it, is "socialism". Nucking Futs.

Obama had nothing, repeat nothing, to do with Obamacare.

sooo, when the gop coined the term obamacare they were just pulling our .... legs?

Who coined it? Maybe you should stop blaming Bush for everything.

 

[kaz]

Q: Do Corporations have Religious Beliefs?

A corporation is a piece of paper, it doesn't think anything.

 

[bendog]

Obama had nothing, repeat nothing, to do with Obamacare.

sooo, when the gop coined the term obamacare they were just pulling our .... legs?

Who coined it? Maybe you should stop blaming Bush for everything.

yeah, here's cyberquarter for you from that liberal rag the WSJ

How Health Law, aka 'ObamaCare,' Got Its Name - Washington Wire - WSJ

 

[RandallFlagg]

If Hobby Lobby currently has employees who use birth control, their claim here has no merit.

If you currently have a brain no one has seen any evidence of it. The simple fact is that Hobby Lobby is objecting only to four, very specific, types of abortifacients.

Again with the facts..


The left hates it when you throw the truth at them like the FACT that Hobby Lobby already pays for 16 contraceptive methods for their employees. Doesn't matter to these clowns.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

sooo, when the gop coined the term obamacare they were just pulling our .... legs?

Who coined it? Maybe you should stop blaming Bush for everything.

yeah, here's cyberquarter for you from that liberal rag the WSJ

How Health Law, aka 'ObamaCare,' Got Its Name - Washington Wire - WSJ

I cited a source for the name that actually dates back to 2008, before Obama was elected, and you think something that was written years later is more authoritative because it blames Bush.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

It is why they have to pay into SS...

United States vs Lee

At least you are doing better than Clayton at picking applicable cases. I do have a question though, did you actually read the decision? If not, here it is.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Interesting, isn't it? Did you notice it applies to laws passed by Congress, not regulations written by the executive branch?

The ACA was a law passed by Congress.

The Bill passed in the House was not the ACA.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Original document where Heritage created Obamacare individual mandate

It is one of the reasons

Ok. I don't know what they were thinking with that or why. It's the worst sort of corporatist nonsense.

Of course it is...it's Heritage Foundation. Duh.

The liberal plan is single payer. The Democratic plan was a Public Option. We got the GOP Heritage plan and because President Obama did it, is "socialism". Nucking Futs.

The GOP would not have created this underwear stain.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

There's plenty of blame to go around. Including the current crop of nitwits desperately trying to maintain the status quo.

Blaming "them" is what cons do. Taking "responsibility" for the mess they make is what they don't do. "Romney care" was the con baby.

Have you seen any Democrat take responsibility for Obamacare? They are all busy running like hell. Some of them are spouting "fix it first" stupidity. You can't fix dog shit.

Democrats have no plans to fix it, they just want to get past the next election.

 

[chikenwing]

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.

Thats not the argument at all, their complaint is they are being forced to do something that is a very objectionable thing for them to do.,providing drugs that are used for abortion are objectionable to them,not ones used just for birth control.

Primary focus is irreverent in this case.

 

[emilynghiem]

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

Ah well....

I consider the ACA and Singlepayer systems as attempts to establish
a "national political religion" based on the belief that "health care is a right"

I consider "prolife" and "prochoice" to be political beliefs,
and "Constitutionalist" beliefs in limited government to be
the equivalent of a political religion.

If you are against the death penalty because of beliefs in
"restorative justice" that is a political religious belief
and so is "retributive justice"

If you believe in "separation of church and state"
that is a political belief based on secular interpretation of the Constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ok. I don't know what they were thinking with that or why. It's the worst sort of corporatist nonsense.

Of course it is...it's Heritage Foundation. Duh.

The liberal plan is single payer. The Democratic plan was a Public Option. We got the GOP Heritage plan and because President Obama did it, is "socialism". Nucking Futs.

The GOP would not have created this underwear stain.

Of course it is a republican plan, to argue otherwise is willful, partisan ignorance. And the fact is that conservative opposition to the plan has nothing to do with the merits of the ACA, and only to do with the party affiliation of the president who signed the legislation into law.

Indeed, that’s why a republican plan was selected as the template for the ACA, in the hope it would garner republican support.

And as correctly noted, the liberal plan is single payer, not the ACA. Liberals, however, being pragmatists, understand that this is the best that can be achieved for now, and hope to repeal the ACA and replace it with expanded Medicare.

 

[The Rabbi]

Of course it is...it's Heritage Foundation. Duh.

The liberal plan is single payer. The Democratic plan was a Public Option. We got the GOP Heritage plan and because President Obama did it, is "socialism". Nucking Futs.

The GOP would not have created this underwear stain.

Of course it is a republican plan, to argue otherwise is willful, partisan ignorance. And the fact is that conservative opposition to the plan has nothing to do with the merits of the ACA, and only to do with the party affiliation of the president who signed the legislation into law.

Indeed, that’s why a republican plan was selected as the template for the ACA, in the hope it would garner republican support.

And as correctly noted, the liberal plan is single payer, not the ACA. Liberals, however, being pragmatists, understand that this is the best that can be achieved for now, and hope to repeal the ACA and replace it with expanded Medicare.

So a plan that was produced with no GOP input, passed with no GOP votes, and implemented over the objections of the GOP is now really a GOP plan? Wow. Just wow. The capacity for self delusion is matched only by the stupidity of the whole thing.
Remember "fuck 'em, we've got the votes"?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

If we passed a constitutional amendment saying that corporations are not allowed to have abortions, or practice birth control would that ease their fears? In short, corporations would be allowed to keep their virginity. On the rape issue, however, I think the corporations should be on their own, in fact, I think sometimes the corporations are more the rapers rather than the rapees.

Oh wow! We are embarrassed for you.

 

[dblack]

Of course it is...it's Heritage Foundation. Duh.

The liberal plan is single payer. The Democratic plan was a Public Option. We got the GOP Heritage plan and because President Obama did it, is "socialism". Nucking Futs.

The GOP would not have created this underwear stain.

Of course it is a republican plan, to argue otherwise is willful, partisan ignorance. And the fact is that conservative opposition to the plan has nothing to do with the merits of the ACA, and only to do with the party affiliation of the president who signed the legislation into law.

Indeed, that’s why a republican plan was selected as the template for the ACA, in the hope it would garner republican support.

Now that's some stategerizing right there! A clever bunch we have in Congress these days. LOL

C'mon CC. You think anyone buys that crap? The template for ACA was originally an insurance industry plan, cooked up by lobbyists. Democrats pushed it for the same reason Republicans did, because they're whores for sale to the highest bidder.

 

[Political Junky]

Funny thing about increasing the availability of contraceptives, the abortion rate actually increase immediately afterwards.

That said, the only people who oppose birth control are the idiots inside your head. The rest of us just have a problem with the government telling us we have to buy insurance that covers it even if we can't get pregnant.

Rick Santorum spoke against birth control.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBTLnO7FQM8"]Rick Santorum wants to fight 'The Dangers Of Contraception'; Birth control is "not okay"[/ame]

Actually, he spoke about morality and slippery slopes, but I understand why you are confused.

I'm not confused, but you are. Watch Rick again as he explains it to you.

 

[emilynghiem]

If you don't believe the Company as a Corporate entity has the right to contest the policy,
what about the INDIVIDUALS who own and run the company. Should the FEDERAL GOVT force these people to violate their own religious beliefs by requiring to pay for "private health care choices of employees" in order to comply with federal laws?

How far do you want to go forcing employers to cover employee costs? As my bf pointed out: is the federal govt going to force companies to pay for housing, safe cars and transportation costs for workers? To improve the quality of their lives, health and work?

If Judge Sotomayor tried to argue that all the people within the company should be represented, not just the owners, FINE LET ALL THE WORKERS PAY FOR THEIR OWN POLICIES AND CHOICES THEY BELIEVE IN.

If you go back to the ACA and rules for exemptions for insurance mandates, the government clearly dictates "terms and conditions" for determining if "members of certain religious organizations" qualify for exemptions from the insurance mandates. This is clearly federal govt regulating on the basis of religion: if YOUR belief or affiliation counts as paying for your own health care, vs. "beliefs in free market or Constitutional responsibility to pay for one's own health care instead of depending on govt" that DON'T COUNT for exemptions.

Clearly discriminating on the basis of one's religion, by imposing penalties on people who don't believe in "going through government insurance mandates" to pay for health care
but "don't meet the RELIGIOUS REQUIREMENTS specified by FEDERAL GOVERNMENT."

Since when does a person have to justify and defend their RELIGIOUS BELIEFS before govt TO GET THEIR FREEDOM AND LIBERTY BACK that passing this law TOOK AWAY.

Where was the DUE PROCESS to prove WHICH taxpayers were guilty of "not wanting to pay for their own health care" before taking rights away as if they had committed a crime?

What is the crime or violation in wanting "free choice" to pay for one's own health care, and to allow other people "free choice" in their health care instead of imposing "one policy through govt" when clearly people don't have the same beliefs about health care choices!

What happened to "free choice?"

How did the Democrats flip from "prochoice" and "keeping govt out of private health decisions" to THIS system of imposing regulations and mandates dictating policy on health care choices and how to pay for it?

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?

I think we should recognize ALL beliefs as equally protected where people accept responsibility for their OWN beliefs.

the only reason the owners of this company are having to go to court
was the federal govt was trying to make "everyone" pay for the "belief"
of SOME PEOPLE in the "right to health care" when not everyone shares this belief.

if that had not been imposed on the whole nation, we wouldn't be having this argument.
the problem was the federal govt was abused to violate the establishment of religion
clause by imposing the belief that "health care is a right" and imposing the faith that
the ACA insurance mandates and exchanges were the best way to reform health care,
even though this violated equal beliefs in free market systems for health care.

The federal govt should be on the stand, defending its policies, not the other way.

You don't punish citizens or companies first, and then put them on the stand to defend their rights that are inalienable. The due process is supposed to come first, BEFORE taking their rights away if they have committed some crime. So what CRIME is it to believe that employees should pay for their own birth control and health care choices?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The real danger is not so much "corporate religious beliefs" but exactly which "religious belief" this hinges upon.

Essentially if Hobby Lobby prevails then "life begins at conception" will be enshrined in the Constitution.

The ramifications of that concept will impact the entire legal system in this nation.

If a fetus has Constitutional Rights then if a pregnant woman were to commit a heinous crime she could not be incarcerated without infringing on the rights of the fetus.

Any tourist who visits the Disney World and falls pregnant can claim US citizenship for the fetus.

Those are just 2 examples of some of the legal issues that will arise. Hobby Lobby is demanding that the SCOTUS accept their religious belief as the basis for Constitutional Rights. If the SCOTUS rules in their favor they will have violated the 1st Amendment by endorsing a religion.

. Rabbi is correct. You people really are coming unglued! Ha Hah Hah

 

[jillian]

The real danger is not so much "corporate religious beliefs" but exactly which "religious belief" this hinges upon.

Essentially if Hobby Lobby prevails then "life begins at conception" will be enshrined in the Constitution.

The ramifications of that concept will impact the entire legal system in this nation.

If a fetus has Constitutional Rights then if a pregnant woman were to commit a heinous crime she could not be incarcerated without infringing on the rights of the fetus.

Any tourist who visits the Disney World and falls pregnant can claim US citizenship for the fetus.

Those are just 2 examples of some of the legal issues that will arise. Hobby Lobby is demanding that the SCOTUS accept their religious belief as the basis for Constitutional Rights. If the SCOTUS rules in their favor they will have violated the 1st Amendment by endorsing a religion.

. Rabbi is correct. You people really are coming unglued! Ha Hah Hah

he has never been correct about anything...

you're funny....

 

[jillian]

so if a corporation ends up having a religion like the theists want, i think that corporations should not be used any longer to shield people from personal liability. (since they're a legal fiction created to do ONLY that).

 

[emilynghiem]

If we passed a constitutional amendment saying that corporations are not allowed to have abortions, or practice birth control would that ease their fears? In short, corporations would be allowed to keep their virginity. On the rape issue, however, I think the corporations should be on their own, in fact, I think sometimes the corporations are more the rapers rather than the rapees.

In general, in order to check Corporations, or any collective institution with more influence resources or authority than an individual citizen:
I suggest that upon licensing a Corporation to operate in a state,
the Corporation should agree to follow the same Constitutional principles and Code of Ethics used to check federal govt from corruption and abuse.
Likewise with citizens, upon turning legal age, all citizens should sign agreements to follow and uphold these same civil rights, liberties, freedoms, privileges and protections of the law for all other citizens; and if convicted of a premeditated violation, agree to pay all financial restitution, costs, debts and damages caused by unlawful action, or else forfeit citizenship.