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

[AvgGuyIA]

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.

Forcing nuns to pay for your abortion isn't persecuting religion?

 

[The Rabbi]

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).

That's nice, dear. But no one gives a shit what you think.

 

[The Rabbi]

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....

I am correct that you are an ignorant poseur who has never added any value to any discussion on this board.

 

[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.

Forcing nuns to pay for your abortion isn't persecuting religion?

No. It's persecuting everyone who doesn't want to pay for someone else's abortion, regardless of their religion.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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?

It's fun watching your meltdown. Take a deep breath. Hobby lobby will still pay for your rubbers after all this is behind us.

 

[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.

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.

It is partisan ignorance to point out that Obamacare got 0 Republican votes? I have explained that the Heritage Foundation's version of the mandate wasn't actually a mandate, all it was was a loss of tax breaks offered to people who had basic insurance. It required no one to purchase anything, which makes it a mandate in the same sense that Obamacare is free, ie, only in the minds of partisan hacks and drooling idiots.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Rick Santorum spoke against birth control.

Rick Santorum wants to fight 'The Dangers Of Contraception'; Birth control is "not okay"

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.

Yes, he sees contraception as eliminating one of the foundations of sex in marraige. In other words, he sees it as a moral issue, just like I said. By the way, did you notice that, unlike you and Obama, he expressed no intentions of mandating that everyone agree with his views? He was talking about how he would use the office of the president to explain why morality matters, not to force people to agree with him.

Come to think of it, that is probably why you are confused.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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).

You really should learn how the law works before you say things. If you had your way every single shareholder could be sued for all damages because GM didn't recall the Cobalt when they first knew about the airbag problem. That might make you feel all self righteous right now, but it would totally wipe out every pension in the country.

 

[RandallFlagg]

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).

Tell me that you're not really as stupid as you act....

 

[RandallFlagg]

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.

It is partisan ignorance to point out that Obamacare got 0 Republican votes? I have explained that the Heritage Foundation's version of the mandate wasn't actually a mandate, all it was was a loss of tax breaks offered to people who had basic insurance. It required no one to purchase anything, which makes it a mandate in the same sense that Obamacare is free, ie, only in the minds of partisan hacks and drooling idiots.

No, it is not partisan "ignorance" to point out anything to these clowns. Obamacare is finished, it is done. It is a failure and will be replaced with common sense replacement plans. For crying out loud! Barry has once again, broken his own damned law to give MORE TIME for the idiots that aren't capable of navigating a simple website (Harry Reid's words - not mine).

They look stupid and foolish again like a brat kid that constantly loses at a child's game and continually changes the rules of the game so he can win at it.

And the left wonder why the world is laughing at us.

 

[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).

That's nice, dear. But no one gives a shit what you think.

that's where you'd be wrong oh braindead pretend rabbi.

i realize actual legal issues confuse you.

now fun along.

 

[dblack]

. It is a failure and will be replaced with common sense replacement plans.

What makes you believe that? From what I've seen Republicans don't plan to make any substantial changes to the law, other than a little rebranding.

 

[The Rabbi]

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).

That's nice, dear. But no one gives a shit what you think.

that's where you'd be wrong oh braindead pretend rabbi.

i realize actual legal issues confuse you.

now fun along.

LOL! Yeah, tell us how Anthony Weiner consults you for political advice. When he isn't sending pics of his junk.
You've been wrong so many times on legal issues on this forum it is a joke that you still pretend to be an attorney.

 

[RandallFlagg]

. It is a failure and will be replaced with common sense replacement plans.

What makes you believe that? From what I've seen Republicans don't plan to make any substantial changes to the law, other than a little rebranding.

Well sonny, just watch. Shortly after they take control of the Senate and add more seats to the House - the will move to defund (and it will be veto proof) this train wreck thus killing it.

 

[hangover]

Of course corporations are people, do they not bleed, cough, go to the bathroom like the rest of us, and the biggie, do corporations not have souls. Sure corporations tend to watch their dollars more and expect to pay big-time for legislative favors but if liberals realized that helping corporations is just like helping the neighborhood church we'd be better off. We must remember that God and the Supreme Court gave souls to corporations or they couldn't exist.

As Jon Stewart said, "Corporations are not born". As soon as one comes out of a vagina, I'll admit corporations are people.

 

[bedowin62]

Of course corporations are people, do they not bleed, cough, go to the bathroom like the rest of us, and the biggie, do corporations not have souls. Sure corporations tend to watch their dollars more and expect to pay big-time for legislative favors but if liberals realized that helping corporations is just like helping the neighborhood church we'd be better off. We must remember that God and the Supreme Court gave souls to corporations or they couldn't exist.

As Jon Stewart said, "Corporations are not born". As soon as one comes out of a vagina, I'll admit corporations are people.

the same ruling that made corporations people made unions people

the left has no problem with that

idiots and hypocrites

 

[Derideo_Te]

Of course corporations are people, do they not bleed, cough, go to the bathroom like the rest of us, and the biggie, do corporations not have souls. Sure corporations tend to watch their dollars more and expect to pay big-time for legislative favors but if liberals realized that helping corporations is just like helping the neighborhood church we'd be better off. We must remember that God and the Supreme Court gave souls to corporations or they couldn't exist.

As Jon Stewart said, "Corporations are not born". As soon as one comes out of a vagina, I'll admit corporations are people.

the same ruling that made corporations people made unions people

the left has no problem with that

idiots and hypocrites

Unions are not incorporated.

 

[Katzndogz]

As Jon Stewart said, "Corporations are not born". As soon as one comes out of a vagina, I'll admit corporations are people.

the same ruling that made corporations people made unions people

the left has no problem with that

idiots and hypocrites

Unions are not incorporated.

Are labor unions nonprofit or for profit corporations

The IRS says they are not for profit corporations under IRS 501(c)5.

 

[dblack]

. It is a failure and will be replaced with common sense replacement plans.

What makes you believe that? From what I've seen Republicans don't plan to make any substantial changes to the law, other than a little rebranding.

Well sonny, just watch. Shortly after they take control of the Senate and add more seats to the House - the will move to defund (and it will be veto proof) this train wreck thus killing it.

Well, we'll see I guess. The problem is, I've seen their proposed 'replacements' and they don't change squat. At best, they replace mandates with tax incentives (same thing). If that's all they willing to propose up front, I have serious doubts the version that makes it through the legislature will have much impact at all.

 

[paperview]

the same ruling that made corporations people made unions people

the left has no problem with that

idiots and hypocrites

Unions are not incorporated.

Are labor unions nonprofit or for profit corporations

The IRS says they are not for profit corporations under IRS 501(c)5.

Even your own link does not say that.