The Catholic faith requires members take communion. For LordOwlington LLC to be a Catholic (which is possible according the corperations are people [my friend] model) it needs to take communion. How can LordOwlington LLC do this?
I'll spell it out for you: It can't because no matter what legal argle-boggle that's currently posing as law corporations are not people. When a corporation goes to jail, we'll talk.
Let's start out first by saying this. Large businesses do things by a vote. It's majority rules, so if the majority of the employees have taken communion, that would be one way.
Secondly, you seem mention an LLC and a Corp as if they are the same thing. They are not.
Finally, you make the wild statement that Corporations aren't people. Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about, you should take some time and look into Corporate personhood. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
Let's start out first by saying this. Large businesses do things by a vote. It's majority rules, so if the majority of the employees have taken communion, that would be one way.
Finally, you make the wild statement that Corporations aren't people. Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about, you should take some time and look into Corporate personhood. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
Hmmm...From the first paragraph in the link you provided:
Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may be recognized as an individual in the eyes of the law. This doctrine forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. For example, corporations may contract with other parties and sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are flesh and blood "people" apart from their shareholders, officers, and directors, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens.
Billy is saying that a corporation exists in the same capacity as a flesh and blood person and therefore is deserving of the same religious freedoms. Let's not play word games, I think you knew what LordOwlingtonIII was getting at.
Particularly since the notion that one will believe corporations are people when they see one go to jail is a common rejoinder given by people well aware of the idea of corporate personhood and find it distasteful.
Let's start out first by saying this. Large businesses do things by a vote. It's majority rules, so if the majority of the employees have taken communion, that would be one way.
The legal responsibilities of boards and board members vary with the nature of the organization, and with the jurisdiction within which it operates. For companies with publicly trading stock, these responsibilities are typically much more rigorous and complex than for those of other types.
Hmmm...From the first paragraph in the link you provided:
Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may be recognized as an individual in the eyes of the law. This doctrine forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. For example, corporations may contract with other parties and sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are flesh and blood "people" apart from their shareholders, officers, and directors, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens.
Billy is saying that a corporation exists in the same capacity as a flesh and blood person and therefore is deserving of the same religious freedoms. Let's not play word games, I think you knew what LordOwlingtonIII was getting at.
In the legal sense a corp are people. It's that simple, if you want to ignore the law, we have nothing left to talk about. Because you are speaking from magical christmas land.
Particularly since the notion that one will believe corporations are people when they see one go to jail is a common rejoinder given by people well aware of the idea of corporate personhood and find it distasteful.
So you think that everyone employeed by Enron should have went to jail? Is there something distasteful about the opposite happening (only a few people going to jail)?
So you think that everyone employeed by Enron should have went to jail? Is there something distasteful about the opposite happening (only a few people going to jail)?
How did you get that from the "a corporation can't go to jail, so it shouldn't count a person" joke to me believing every employee in Enron should have gone to jail? This is a non sequitur
Quote from urweak »
In the legal sense a corp are people. It's that simple, if you want to ignore the law, we have nothing left to talk about. Because you are speaking from magical christmas land.
t
Well, no, not exactly. They count as a person, ie, a distinct legal entity. They aren't people and corporate personhood does not currently extend to a corporation having an official religious belief.
A food company making a product that fits a market segment of consumers religious beliefs is not evidence for your claim.
Fair enough. I start a company to promote Christianity because i think that is what god wants me to do. I have no desire to cater to a market segment. My only goal is to promote Christianity. Let's take it a step further. Lets say I want to make widgets but I MUST make widgets and run my company in a christian way or according to my beliefs I will not be able make widgets and live with my self. These two companies for all intents and purposes are operating under religious beliefs. Its irrelevant as to the source of the religious beliefs whether its the company or the owner because they are one and the same.
The example with firing someone for violating company policy, likewise, is not evidence that companies can have a religion.
See, this is you attempting to change the example with semantics that do not actually change it. The fact is, the "company policy" is/includes a moral code. Believing in equality is a moral imperative. As pointed out in another thread this company exercises that moral code by firing their CEO and establishing a healthcare plan. Further, are you now telling me that you agree, it's appropriate to fire someone for opposing gay marriage? You believe this is an appropriate company policy? Can you cite where this is stipulated to in the company policy that employees must be for gay marriage?
Why do you think it's relevant the company has a religion? I'm willing to bet this question blows your mind. It's very important though. This issue has nothing to do with a company "having a religion". You and others want to frame it this way because you think this is something you can prove. Besides that, the government has already stipulated to hobby lobbies sincerity. You keep bringing this up like its a relevant topic.
The real issue is can a company exercise religious beliefs or more apt can a companies owner use his or her company to exercise their relgious beliefs.
With that said, you changing the scope from exercising religion beliefs to one of having religion is telling towards your integrity in this debate. Again, exercise religious beliefs. It's largely irrelevant where or how it get these beliefs. Besides the government has stipulated to this belief already in this case. http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-354_5436.pdf
The financial burden isn't the topic I broached
Exactly, I broached upon on it when you asked me to make a case.
Furthermore, the financial burden of complying with the directive is the concern of the sherbert test, not the financial burden of non-compliance.
This is factually wrong and yet another example of you playing semantics in order to further your position. When looking at the law you can see the error.
Quote from -sherbert test »
whether the government action is a substantial burden on the person’s ability to act on that belief.
The fine is a government action. Considering, estimated profits for hobby lobby (that is all that is available) is about 400 million and the estimated fine is 475 million, that is rather substantial burden for someone to face for acting on a belief by not providing certain contraceptives.
Further, to underscore that a company can exercise religious beliefs, we have to look no further than hobby lobby electing not to provide certain contraceptive coverage due to a religious belief. The company is doing something in the manner consistent with a religion. How you can not knowledge that as exercising a religious belief is beyond me. Well, I actually believe you do understand this and can not make an effective argument against that so you change the goal post to one of having to demonstrate or prove a company has religion, which, again, is the the relevant issue but we can make it the issue and then we'd have to ask if the they are sincere...the fact they spent allot of money on this case and the fact it would do significant harm to the company to not provide certain contraceptives while paying huge fines is a rather compelling evidence of sincerity. There is literally no other reason than religion for them not to provide relatively (as compared to paying the fine or court cost incurred so far) cheap contraceptive coverage.
Answer the question then? If its so obvious, then why hasn't Hobby Lobby gotten this exemption that, according to you, should be granted to them. What makes hobby lobby different?
What are you leaving out?
Nothing makes them different. However, You think the fact one company makes a profit and another does not is a relevant distinction. Comically, you did not provide any sort argument as to why profit matters when discussing constitutional rights. It's asinine to me that you think people or companies lose the ability to exercise religious beliefs because they make a profit. How does making a profit alleviate their constitutional rights. See, I knew what you meant with this one but it was too stupid to respond too and even further, you made no compelling argument as to why this is relevant.
There is nothing of yours that you've said directly to me that I've ignored.
I'll name one thing you've ignored. You've repeatedly ignored that we are talking about the exercise of religion, you know what the law protects. All you want to talk about is whether hobby lobby hobby lobbies has religion. Hint: An owner can use his company to exercise religious beliefs. Do you disagree with this?
The examples you've given are not evidence in favor of your position and, at best, show that officers of the company have religious beliefs which is a non-issue.
Owners. That is an important distinction. besides, in case you've missed the last several times I've posted this, the government has stipulated to the sincere belief of hobby lobby. You may not agree with this but obviously those fighting against hobby lobby do believe it. Further, I must ask are we talking about my personal beliefs or are we talking about the legalities? If we are talking about beliefs, you nor I can really prove if a company has or does not have religious beliefs. Further, is it really up to the government to determine if someone has or does not have religious beliefs? I'd be happy to debate this issue separately. I can not see a court ruling that a religious belief does not exist. If we are talking legally, in this case, they have a sincere belief. For the record, I'm speaking from a legal perspective. My personal opinion, does not matter. I've said repeatedly. I do not personally agree with hobby lobbies stance in this case, however, I do respect their right to exercise their beliefs. http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-354_5436.pdf
Or the financial aspects aren't relevant and bringing them up is a red herring.
Bull*****. Just saying they are not relevant, does not make them not relevant. I'm sorry you do not hold that kind of status to make such a determination. You've provided no evidence to suggest the financial implications are not relevant. The only thing you've posted is in an inaccurate interpretation of law. Honestly, go read the law, it clearly states government action....a government action can be a fine, a law, a mandate, etc etc. I really hope its ignorance when interpreting "action" as opposed to making a disingenuous and narrow interpretation of government action to suit your argument.
Healthcare is, for better or worse, still tied to employment. Restricting the employees medical decisions based upon their employers religious beliefs is a way for the Greens to force people who are not evangelical Christians to act according to those beliefs. Its akin to the gay marriage stuff and numerous other activities where some religious people don't just want the freedom to do as they please, but to keep others from otherwise non-harmful activities.
Employees have the freedom to quit hobby lobby. As long as they can quit hobby lobby, which they can, their medical decision are not being restricted. As long as they can access the contraceptives, they are not being restricted. You keep saying this stuff and ignoring the reality that hobby lobby employees are free to quit if they feel their decisions are being restricted. Not paying for something does not mean I'm stopping people from accessing something. If I do not buy a soda for my friend, it does not mean I'm restricting his ability to get soda. He still can get soda. The access to soda has not changed, its still in the vending machine. He just has to find a way to pay for it. With that said, it is funny you have no problems the government restricting the green's family from exercising their religion with their company that they own. Let's put it this way, can the government mandate the green family to pay for abortions through their company for their employees. Its the same exact issue. I suspect you believe the government should and has the power to do this. I believe the government should not have this power to force the green family to pay for things that are contrary to their religious views. Besides that, companies have the power to restrict things. They can restrict you from smoking, they can restrict you from talking, they can restrict you from sitting, walking, etc etc. What makes you believe the company does not have the ability or right to restrict things? They can restrict bonuses, they can restrict pay raises....it goes on and on and on. I guess it's the fact they are using religion to restrict things that has you all up in a tizzy and not the fact they are restricting something. An argument concerning a company restricting things is rather poor....do better next time.
Letting them dictate what counts as healthcare opens the door to many other pieces of litigation which further allows people in position of wealth and influence to infringe upon their employees earned benefits in the name of religion.
Lets get one ******* thing straight. Nothing about what the ACA guarantees is earned, it is mandated and given to the people by order of the government. How can you honestly argue a defacto entitlement is "earned" astounds me. it actually pisses me off that you claim people have earned this mandated contraceptive care. If this is not the most infuriating thing you've ever said.....earned. Bull*****.
Hobby Lobbys healthcare plan covering contraceptives does little to infringe upon the owners of the company and their ability to practice their religion.
Except were not talking "practicing their religion" we are talking about exercising their religion. In other words, making decisions in the name or under the auspices of their religion. They own a company. It stand to reason when you remove an ability for them to exercise their religious beliefs it removes an ability to exercise their religion.
There are people for whom religious freedom lawsuits are a way to give Christianity a place of privilege and have nothing to do with their religious beliefs being under attack.
Jesus man, in this case, its not about their religious beliefs being under attack is about the ability to exercise religious beliefs. exercise, exercise exercise that belief. I do not doubt you that there are nefarious people who use religion as out. Those people, while disturbing, does not invalidate the ones who do have sincere claims.
Where is the 475 from? And as has already been stated, it is precedent in the US that laws whose goal is not the infringement of religion, but that step on small portions of it, are not automatically a violation of someones rights.
what the ****? Have you done any research? I do not disagree there is an automatic a violation of someones rights. This is not one of those small violations.
Oh no, laws exists? The government regulates commerce. Nobody needs to be forced to work at hobby lobby, but for the people who already work there plenty of those people cannot feasibly get other employment and the control is being exerted currently and, mark my words, if someone this kind of thing was made legal you'd see a swift change in companies using religion as a reason to stop doing certain kinds of services.
slippery slope fallacy. The world wont end. The reality is we live in a politically sensitive society. Sure they will be some but to most, its not worth the risk of alienating the employees or their customers. I must reiterate, their a distinct difference between an private company and public. A CEO of a public company has an interest to his investors, not religion. A owner of a company has a vested interest in being righteous in his day to day running of his company.
Interestingly enough, if we did not have the ACA, this would not be an issue.
-----------------------------------------------------
You know there is a simple solution to this. Why not provide a cash consideration employees consistent with the cost of the coverage for the four contraceptives then the employees can use that to purchase insurance for these certain contraceptives, if they so desire.
-----------------------
Finally, many, many times you've stated that my words were not proof of something. I'd like to ask you who the made you the judge of what is proof and what is not proof. I'm not looking for your approval. I'm looking for you to explain why it's not proof. You wont do that. I can say with near certianty that most things i say, outside of personal opinion, can be supported with both logical and credible sources. You making statement of facts relies on your opinion, which, forgive me, I don't trust.
Fair enough. I start a company to promote Christianity because i think that is what god wants me to do. I have no desire to cater to a market segment. My only goal is to promote Christianity. Let's take it a step further. Lets say I want to make widgets but I MUST make widgets and run my company in a christian way or according to my beliefs I will not be able make widgets and live with my self. These two companies for all intents and purposes are operating under religious beliefs. Its irrelevant as to the source of the religious beliefs whether its the company or the owner because they are one and the same.
Your goals are your own. The company is a tool. There are rules and regulations to use this tool. That the company owner sets themselves additional rules for how they operate is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant to the overall legal issue here. The company is merely a tool of its owners and we have law governing how those tools may be used.
Quote from Billy »
See, this is you attempting to change the example with semantics that do not actually change it. The fact is, the "company policy" is/includes a moral code. Beleiving in equality is a moral impearative. As pointed out in another thread this company excerises that moral code by firing their CEO and establishing a healthcare plan. Further, are you now telling me that you agree, it's appropriate to fire someone for oppsing gay marriage? You believe this is an appropriate company policy? Can you cite where this is stipulated to in the company policy that employees must be for gay marriage?
Why do you think it's relevant the company has a religion? I'm willing to bet this question blows your mind. It's very important though. This issue has nothing to do with a company "having a religion". You and others want to frame it this way because you think this is something you can prove. Besides that, the government has already stipulated to hobby lobbies sincerity. You keep bringing this up like its a relevant topic.
The real issue is can a company exercise religious beliefs or more apt can a companies owner use his or her company to exercise their relgious beliefs.
With that said, you changing the scope from exercising religion beliefs to one of having religion is telling towards your intergrety in this debate. Again, exercise religoius beliefs. It's largely irrelevant where or how it get these beliefs. Besides the government has stipulated to this belief already in this case. http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-354_5436.pdf
The rationale of the people making those rules is somewhat irrelevant, barring them violating labor laws.
Also, the CEO stepped down from mozilla because of pressures that led him to believe he wasnt going to be able to his job and would lose the company money. He was not fired.
Hobby lobbies managements sincerity is a moot point and I have repeatedly not addressed it. There is a clear difference between people who manage hobby lobby having religious beliefs and the corporation itself having them.
The scope has not been changed. These are disparate topics. Do not conflate them.
Quote from Billy »
Exactly, I broached upon on it when you asked me to make a case.
Furthermore, the financial burden of complying with the directive is the concern of the sherbert test, not the financial burden of non-compliance.
This is factually wrong and yet another example of you playing semantics in order to further your position. When looking at the law you can see the error.
The financial burden of their non-compliance is irrelevant to the sherbert test, indeed. Only their financial burden of complying with the law. There is no substantial financial burden from complying with the law, ergo, your financial argument is irrelevant.
Quote from Billy »
The fine is a government action. Considering, estimated profits for hobby lobby (that is all that is available) is about 400 million and the estimated fine is 475 million, that is rather substantial burden for someone to face for acting on a belief by not providing certian contraceptives.
Further, to underscore that a company can exercise relgious beliefs, we have to look no further than hobby lobby electiving not to provide certian contraceptive coverage due to a religious belief. The company is doing something in the manner consistant with a religion. How you can not aknowledge that as exerising a religious belief is beyond me. Well, I actually believe you do understand this and can not make an effective argument against that so you change the goal post to one of having to demonstrate or prove a company has religion, which, again, is the the relevant issue but we can make it the issue and then we'd have to ask if the they are sincere...the fact they spent alot of money on this case and the fact it would do signficant harm to the company to not provide certain contraceptives while paying huge fines is a rather compelling evdience of sincerity. There is literally no other reason than religion for them not to provide relatively (as compared to paying the fine or court cost incurred so far) cheap contraceptive coverage.
See above, the fines are irrelevant to any sort of case you can make because the sherbert test is financial cost of complying with the law.
I can not acknowledge that quite simply. Because you are equivocating between two groups. Hobby Lobby as a legal entity and the people who manage it. From a legal perspective, the thing we are arguing about, corporations do not have religious views. Their management can, but the corporation itself does not have a religious view. I could go without the constant repetition of your core claim. I'd hate to see Blinking Spirit invoke the stalled debate rule here. Stop equivocating between two distance legal entities.
Quote from Billy »
Nothing makes them different. However, You think the fact one company makes a profit and another does not is a relevant distinction. Comically, you did not provide any sort argument as to why profit matters when discussing costitutional rights. It's asisnine to me that you think poeople or companies lose the abilty to exericse relgious beliefs becasue they make a profit. How does making a profit allievate their consittional rights. See, I knew what you meant with this one but it was too stupid to respond too and even further, you made no compelling argument as to why this is relevant.
Noting makes them different? Well damn, it is simply outrageous that they weren't granted a waiver then. Unless, of course, there are, in fact, differences which you either don't wish to share with me, dishonesty, or that you are unaware of, ignorance.
Which is it Billy? From your own statement the only two options here are dishonesty or ignorance. Choose one?
Also, where are you getting this nonsense about profits from? See, this is why I ask you to actual make your cases succinctly and directly to me. You keep getting me confused with someone else. Hell, you keep saying that nothing makes them different and then start ranting about for profit institutions. I wonder if thats a clue to what makes em different.
Quote from Billy »
I'll name one thing you've ignored. You've repeatedly ignored that we are talking about the exercise of religion, you know what the law protects. All you want to talk about is whether hobby lobby hobby lobbies has religion. Hint: An owner can use his company to exercise religious beliefs. Do you disagree with this?
lol, the grammar here is truly hilarious.
And no, wrong again Billy. I've kept that in mind and my first reply in this thread specifically dealt with it. The problem is your equivocation between what the owner does and what the company does. They are not the same.
Care to try again?
Quote from Billy »
Owners. That is an imporant distinction. besides, in case you've missed the last several times I've posted this, the government has stipulated to the sincere belief of hobby lobby. You may not agree with this but obviously those fighting against hobby lobby do believe it. Further, I must ask are we talking about my personal beliefs or are we talking about the legalities? If we are talking about beliefs, you nor I can really prove if a company has or does not have religious beliefs. Further, is it really up to the government to determine if someone has or does not have religious beliefs? I'd be happy to debate this issue separately. I can not see a court ruling that a religious belief does not exist. If we are talking legally, in this case, they have a sincere belief. For the record, I'm speaking from a legal perspective. My personal opinion, does not matter. I've said repeatedly. I do not personally agree with hobby lobbies stance in this case, however, I do respect their right to exercise their beliefs. http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-354_5436.pdf
The distinction between officers of the company and the owners is an important distinction? Lol. In some cases, sure, but Hobby Lobby is a family owned business. The owners and the officers are one and the same. The CEO founded it.
And I can prove, quite easily, that any given company doesn't have a religious belief. Its not the law. Thats what Hobby Lobby is trying to do, to get the law changed. A corporation is a legal construct, it has no mind. It is a tool used by the people running it to accomplish a task. The people who make up Hobby Lobbies management and owners are southern baptists. This does not make the corporation a southern baptist.
Look, if you are going to insist that this is a legal opinion, then you need to actually do the due diligence because your entire argument is an equivocation between the beliefs of members of a corporation with the corporation itself having those beliefs. It'd be like saying that someone being born to Christian parents automatically makes them a Christian at birth. There is no will to decide.
A corporation is a tool. Nothing more. Its a really fancy legal tool, but they are principally used for the insurance of property and to allow for a proper continuation of ownership rights.
Not to mention that why should we let a corporations religious views, if it even has them, supercede the religious views of the employees who are, in fact, people of the flesh and blood variety.
Quote from Billy »
Bull*****. Just saying they are not relevant, does not make them not relevant. I'm sorry you do not hold that kind of status to make such a determination. You've provided no evidence to suggest the finacial implications are not relevant. The only thing you've posted is in an inaccurante interpetation of law. Honestly, go read the law, it clearly states government action....a government action can be a fine, a law, a mandate, etc etc. I really hope its ignorance when interpeting "action" as opposed to making a disingenuous and narrow interpretation of government action to suit your argument.
I grow somewhat tired of explaining to you, over and over again, the difference between the financial burden of complying with the law verus not complying. If you want to be able to claim to base your arguments on the law, why not start with properly understanding the sherbert act?
Quote from Billy »
Employees have the freedom to quit hobby lobby. As long as they can quit hobby lobby, which they can, their medical deicsion are not being restricted. As long as they can access the contracetpives, they are not being restricted. You keep saying this stuff and ignoring the relaity that hobby lobby employees are free to quit if they feel their deicsions are being restricted. Not paying for something does not mean I'm stopping people from accessing something. If I do not buy a soda for my friend, it does not mean I'm restricting his ability to get soda. He still can get soda. The access to soda has not changed, its still in the vending machine. He just has to find a way to pay for it. With that said, it is funny you have no problems the government restricting the green's family from exercising their religion with their company that they own. Let's put it this way, can the government mandate the green family to pay for abortions through their company for their employees. Its the same exact issue. I suspect you believe the government should and has the power to do this. I beleive the government should not have this power to force the green family to pay for things that are contrary to their relgious views.
That they could, in theory, quit is irrelevant. Some of these people found their insurance taken when the Greens discovered this in the first place. What of the interuptions? What of the people in small towns for whom changing employment isn't feasible? What of the people who, if the Greens get their way, other companies owned by conservative Christians make similar edicts against birth control? “Just quit” is just not a feasible solution and when it comes to what causes more harm I'd rank “thousands of women needing to quit their jobs and find other work to, hopefully, get access to contraceptive care” at significantly more of a problem than “Hobby Lobby provides legally mandated health coverage”
When it comes to health care in the United States not paying for something is, in fact, denying that care to their employees. Some contraceptive care is expensive. Expensive to the point where low income people cannot afford those kinds of contraceptives without insurance coverage. Your soda analogy is terrible and I'm pretty sure you know that. The price is not equivalent. The need is not equivalent. Honestly Billy, did you type that up thinking it was some great analogy?
Also, the government is not making the green family, per se, pay for it. The corporation pays for it. Again, Hobby Lobby, the corporation, is a distinct legal entity.
Quote from Billy »
Lets get one ******* thing straight. Nothing about what the ACA gaurantees is earned, it is mandated and given to the people by order of the government. How can you honestly argue a defacto entitlment is "earned" astounds me. it actually pisses me off that you claim people have earned this mandated contraceptive care. If this is not the most infuriating thing you've ever said.....earned. Bull*****.
Health Care, as part of the benefits package that an employee receives from their employer, is an earned benefit. All the ACA does is modify how insurance is packaged and sold. It is not an entitlement. None of what you've said here is true as it relates to Hobby Lobby. You simply do not know what you are talking about.
Quote from Billy »
Except were not talking "practicing their religion" we are talking about exercising their religion. In other words, making decisions in the name or under the auspices of their religion. They own a company. It stand to reason when you remove an ability for them to exercise their religious beliefs it removes an ability to exercise their religion.
Semantics aside, distinct legal entities, etc etc
Quote from Billy »
Jesus man, in this case, its not about their religious beliefs being under attack is about the ability to exercise religious beliefs. exercise, exercise exercise that belief. I do not doubt you that there are nefarious people who use religion as out. Those people, while disturbing, does not invalidate the ones who do have sincere claims.
Are mormons allowed to legally practice polygamy in the united states?
'
what the ****? Have you done any research? I do not disagree there is an automatic a violation of someones rights. This is not one of those small violations.
Oh look, the number for not complying. Irrelevant.
Quote from Billy »
sliperry slope fallacy. The world wont end. The reality is we live in a politically sensitive society. Sure they will be some but to most, its not worth the risk of alientaing the employees or their customers. I must reinterate, their a distinct difference between an private company and public. A CEO of a public company has an interest to his investors, not religion. A owner of a company has a vested interest in being rightous in his day to day running of his compnay.
Not the slippery slope fallacy. Thats where A leads to B and C.
This is where A being made legal means that more people will feel free to engage in A
Different things.
And anyway, this is still so irrelevant I can barely fathom why you're wasting your time saying it.
Quote from Billy »
You know there is a simple solution to this. Why not provide a cash consideration employees consistent with the cost of the coverage for the four contraceptives then the employees can use that to purchase insurance for these certain contraceptives, if they so desire.
The logistics of that would be significantly harder to do than to simply have it be part of their health coverage. The simplest solution is that Hobby Lobby continues paying for its old insurance plans, the ones that coverage all facets of medical care. How does one determine the cash amount? Does Hobby Lobby still pay for it? Well, *****, they are still paying for birth control they don't like. Is it a rebate? Hobby Lobby is still going to feel likes its paying for contraception. Is it a monetary amount specifically for paying for contraception? Well, dang, Hobby Lobby is still going to feel likes its paying for contraception.
The simple fact of the matter is, Billy, that for the employees of Hobby Lobby to get their full health coverage in a way consistent with American Law that Hobby Lobby is going to have to do what they were doing a few months ago and just pay for what they are legally beholden to.
The legal responsibilities of boards and board members vary with the nature of the organization, and with the jurisdiction within which it operates. For companies with publicly trading stock, these responsibilities are typically much more rigorous and complex than for those of other types.
and so what does that mean in regards to this statement being true?:
Quote from urweak »
Let's start out first by saying this. Large businesses do things by a vote. It's majority rules, so if the majority of the employees have taken communion, that would be one way.
In the legal sense a corp are people. It's that simple, if you want to ignore the law, we have nothing left to talk about. Because you are speaking from magical christmas land.
And how does this or the link you provided relate to what LordOwlington and billy were talking about? Because they are talking about corporate personhood in a literal sense. Billy is arguing that they are literally people and therefore deserving of the same legal rights as a flesh and blood person.
@ECP - Instead of posting a long winded reply to each of your comments I'll focus this post on the first:
Your goals are your own. The company is a tool. There are rules and regulations to use this tool.
okay, so what?
That the company owner sets themselves additional rules for how they operate is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant to the overall legal issue here
You do not get to decide what's relevant or not relevant. That the company owner exercising their religion while operating their company is very much the relevant legal issue.
The company is merely a tool of its owners and we have law governing how those tools may be used.
We also have laws protecting ones right to exercise region. This law is not interpreted as being able to exercise their religion with out tools. Show me a law that says you can not use a tool to exercise your religion. You have no legal standing to argue the irrelevancy of a company being used to exercise religious beliefs.
@ECP until you edit your post and actually respond to stuff instead of saying everything is irrelevant because you say so, I'm done. I've already found several disingenuous attempts by you to change the context again. You've added nothing new to the discussion. You continue to repeat that things are irrelevant and make baseless claims. It's poor taste to change the context of what I've pointed out then call it irrelevant afterwards. You do not get to determine the context or relevancy. The whole purpose of debate to argue why something should be irrelevant or relevant. You are not debating, you are merely disagreeing with me and stating your opinioins.
Just wanted to chime in and remind people that the reason Hobby Lobby's fine would be so high is that they are trying to provide partial coverage.... if they just dropped all coverage the "fine" wouldn't cost them much more than just providing coverage int he first place. Financially, the difference between providing coverage and not providing coverage is minimal, the only reason they have a claim of such a huge burden is they are trying to only provide partial coverage instead of no coverage.
Basically a state/government interest is only compelling if it's critical and necessary to do things like save lives or protect national security. The government almost certainly could not show a compelling state interest here. If the government wins, it will be because the court decides this test does not apply.
Again, the standard for a compelling interest is insanely high. It's the same standard that's used in strict scrutiny analysis, meaning that it's the same standard the government has to meet if it wants to discriminate on the basis of race.
In the case that preceeded the Religious Freedom Resporation Act, the court held that strict scrutiny did not apply to regulating religious beliefs. Scalia's majority opinion said that applying the strict scrutiny test to religious freedoms would create "a private right to ignore generally applicable laws" and would "open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." In other words, Scalia was noting that the compelling interest test is so high that almost no laws or regulations can pass it.
But congress passed the RFRA in response, which (as you noted) applies the strict scrutiny test. There are very few SCOTUS cases that find a compelling state interest. You have to be doing something like saving lots of lives or protecting the nation from foreign attack.
Also, it's important to note that the "compelling state interest" test was not at play in the 2012 challenge to the ACA. SCOTUS found that the ACA was a constitutionally-authorized tax, so there was no requirement to show any kind of special state interest.
I think Hobby Lobby is favored to win, but if they lose I would guess that it will be for one of two reasons:
1. SCOTUS decides that the RFRA is unconstitutional. This is a possibility since it already stuck down the portions that apply to states.
2. SCOTUS decides that companies can never have religious beliefs. This is less likely I think, since SCOTUS is very big on corporate personhood right now.
There is close to zero chance that the government would win on a compelling interest argument. I have not read the briefs, but I would be quite surprised if they wasted more than a sentence of their word limit trying to argue this.
In the case that preceeded the Religious Freedom Resporation Act, the court held that strict scrutiny did not apply to regulating religious beliefs. Scalia's majority opinion said that applying the strict scrutiny test to religious freedoms would create "a private right to ignore generally applicable laws" and would "open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." In other words, Scalia was noting that the compelling interest test is so high that almost no laws or regulations can pass it.
Understanding this makes me wonder why the government would not accommodate Hobby Lobby in some way. This can not be the only way they can implement mandated certain contraceptive care (not that agree it should be mandated). They seem so rigid in wanting to prove they can limit all instances of exercising religious beliefs when interacting with laws. This underlying implication has me concerned. It does not seem the government wants a compromise with any entity that exercise their religious belief. They effectively want to make this right irrelevant. I think there must be a standard that limits the governments ability impede upon a persons or entities ability to exercise religious beliefs.
In the case that preceeded the Religious Freedom Resporation Act, the court held that strict scrutiny did not apply to regulating religious beliefs. Scalia's majority opinion said that applying the strict scrutiny test to religious freedoms would create "a private right to ignore generally applicable laws" and would "open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." In other words, Scalia was noting that the compelling interest test is so high that almost no laws or regulations can pass it.
Understanding this makes me wonder why the government would not accommodate Hobby Lobby in some way. This can not be the only way they can implement mandated certain contraceptive care (not that agree it should be mandated). They seem so rigid in wanting to prove they can limit all instances of exercising religious beliefs when interacting with laws. This underlying implication has me concerned. It does not seem the government wants a compromise with any entity that exercise their religious belief. They effectively want to make this right irrelevant. I think there must be a standard that limits the governments ability impede upon a persons or entities ability to exercise religious beliefs.
If they compromise with Hobby Lobby on this issue they are worried they will have to compromise with every business claiming a religious exception, including on more extreme issues. This is what Scalia was worried about in Smith. (Remember that Scalia is a conservative and devout Catholic, so he normally sides with religion; if he's worried about the religious exceptions running rampant, he may have a point.)
Just because the government cannot prove a compelling interest does not mean they will lose this case, however. They may get the RFRA invalidated or may get the Court to hold that companies can't have religious beliefs, as I mentioned above.
So even though I side with Hobby Lobby's right here, I don't think the government "wants to make this right irrelevant." I think they just want to make their lives easier by not having to manage a bunch of religious exception claims.
On the flipside, I feel like this kind of rhetoric over-dramatizes the issue. So your Jehova's Wintess employers don't want to pay for blood transfusions. Why is that a problem, if you know about that going in? It's not like they're saying you aren't allowed to have a blood transfusion. They just aren't going to shell out to cover it.
Let's say you're considering a job downtown in a major city. The boss tells you it's going to cost $10 per day to park downtown, and that the business won't cover this cost. So you decide whether it's worth the $10 per day, and then you either accept the job or don't.
You sign up to work for a JW business, and they say "we don't pay for blood transfusions." So you figure out the cost of adding that coverage to your policy is $X per day, and then you either accept the job or don't.
What business is it of theirs what type of health care you receive? What if you are desperate for a job and it's either take the job or lose you residence or ability to feed yourself? Why should their religion dictate what you can and can't have covered on your health insurance plan?
What business is it of theirs what type of health care you receive? What if you are desperate for a job and it's either take the job or lose you residence or ability to feed yourself? Why should their religion dictate what procedures you can and can't recieve?
I can't engage with you until you're willing to represent the issues correctly. Hobby Lobby is not "dictat[ing] what procedures [its employees] can and can't recieve." Hobby Lobby is refusing to pay for these procedures.
I have corrected you on this already in this thread. I understand that you think it's nitpicking, but it's incredibly central to the debate. If Hobby Lobby was telling its employees that they were forbidden from using or purchasing birth control on their own, I would have a completely opposite view of this case.
You were talking about Jehovah's witnesses there. Not only that, but as ECP has said, a hobby lobby win sets a legal president that other businesses can site as reasons to deny coverage for things like blood transfusions or organ transplants. You opened the door here, so answer the questions please.
On the hobby lobby, suppose that was a woman that was working there and restricted to work there due to economic circumstances. Plan B pills around here cost about $60. Denying coverage through insurance is the same thing as denying someone access if they can't afford it out of pocket. Yes, some people could afford it out of pocket - but not everyone.
Let's start out first by saying this. Large businesses do things by a vote. It's majority rules, so if the majority of the employees have taken communion, that would be one way.
Secondly, you seem mention an LLC and a Corp as if they are the same thing. They are not.
Finally, you make the wild statement that Corporations aren't people. Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about, you should take some time and look into Corporate personhood. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B
Well that's not true.
Hmmm...From the first paragraph in the link you provided:
Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may be recognized as an individual in the eyes of the law. This doctrine forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. For example, corporations may contract with other parties and sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are flesh and blood "people" apart from their shareholders, officers, and directors, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens.
Billy is saying that a corporation exists in the same capacity as a flesh and blood person and therefore is deserving of the same religious freedoms. Let's not play word games, I think you knew what LordOwlingtonIII was getting at.
The CEO reports to the board of directors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_directors
The legal responsibilities of boards and board members vary with the nature of the organization, and with the jurisdiction within which it operates. For companies with publicly trading stock, these responsibilities are typically much more rigorous and complex than for those of other types.
In the legal sense a corp are people. It's that simple, if you want to ignore the law, we have nothing left to talk about. Because you are speaking from magical christmas land.
So you think that everyone employeed by Enron should have went to jail? Is there something distasteful about the opposite happening (only a few people going to jail)?
BUWGRChilds PlayGRWUB
BUWGR Highlander GRWUB
UBSquee's Shapeshifting PetBU
BW Multiplayer Control WB
RG Changeling GR
UR Mana FlareRU
UMerfolkU
B MBMC B
How did you get that from the "a corporation can't go to jail, so it shouldn't count a person" joke to me believing every employee in Enron should have gone to jail? This is a non sequitur
t
Well, no, not exactly. They count as a person, ie, a distinct legal entity. They aren't people and corporate personhood does not currently extend to a corporation having an official religious belief.
Fair enough. I start a company to promote Christianity because i think that is what god wants me to do. I have no desire to cater to a market segment. My only goal is to promote Christianity. Let's take it a step further. Lets say I want to make widgets but I MUST make widgets and run my company in a christian way or according to my beliefs I will not be able make widgets and live with my self. These two companies for all intents and purposes are operating under religious beliefs. Its irrelevant as to the source of the religious beliefs whether its the company or the owner because they are one and the same.
See, this is you attempting to change the example with semantics that do not actually change it. The fact is, the "company policy" is/includes a moral code. Believing in equality is a moral imperative. As pointed out in another thread this company exercises that moral code by firing their CEO and establishing a healthcare plan. Further, are you now telling me that you agree, it's appropriate to fire someone for opposing gay marriage? You believe this is an appropriate company policy? Can you cite where this is stipulated to in the company policy that employees must be for gay marriage?
Why do you think it's relevant the company has a religion? I'm willing to bet this question blows your mind. It's very important though. This issue has nothing to do with a company "having a religion". You and others want to frame it this way because you think this is something you can prove. Besides that, the government has already stipulated to hobby lobbies sincerity. You keep bringing this up like its a relevant topic.
The real issue is can a company exercise religious beliefs or more apt can a companies owner use his or her company to exercise their relgious beliefs.
With that said, you changing the scope from exercising religion beliefs to one of having religion is telling towards your integrity in this debate. Again, exercise religious beliefs. It's largely irrelevant where or how it get these beliefs. Besides the government has stipulated to this belief already in this case. http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-354_5436.pdf
Exactly, I broached upon on it when you asked me to make a case.
This is factually wrong and yet another example of you playing semantics in order to further your position. When looking at the law you can see the error.
The fine is a government action. Considering, estimated profits for hobby lobby (that is all that is available) is about 400 million and the estimated fine is 475 million, that is rather substantial burden for someone to face for acting on a belief by not providing certain contraceptives.
Further, to underscore that a company can exercise religious beliefs, we have to look no further than hobby lobby electing not to provide certain contraceptive coverage due to a religious belief. The company is doing something in the manner consistent with a religion. How you can not knowledge that as exercising a religious belief is beyond me. Well, I actually believe you do understand this and can not make an effective argument against that so you change the goal post to one of having to demonstrate or prove a company has religion, which, again, is the the relevant issue but we can make it the issue and then we'd have to ask if the they are sincere...the fact they spent allot of money on this case and the fact it would do significant harm to the company to not provide certain contraceptives while paying huge fines is a rather compelling evidence of sincerity. There is literally no other reason than religion for them not to provide relatively (as compared to paying the fine or court cost incurred so far) cheap contraceptive coverage.
Nothing makes them different. However, You think the fact one company makes a profit and another does not is a relevant distinction. Comically, you did not provide any sort argument as to why profit matters when discussing constitutional rights. It's asinine to me that you think people or companies lose the ability to exercise religious beliefs because they make a profit. How does making a profit alleviate their constitutional rights. See, I knew what you meant with this one but it was too stupid to respond too and even further, you made no compelling argument as to why this is relevant.
I'll name one thing you've ignored. You've repeatedly ignored that we are talking about the exercise of religion, you know what the law protects. All you want to talk about is whether hobby lobby hobby lobbies has religion. Hint: An owner can use his company to exercise religious beliefs. Do you disagree with this?
Owners. That is an important distinction. besides, in case you've missed the last several times I've posted this, the government has stipulated to the sincere belief of hobby lobby. You may not agree with this but obviously those fighting against hobby lobby do believe it. Further, I must ask are we talking about my personal beliefs or are we talking about the legalities? If we are talking about beliefs, you nor I can really prove if a company has or does not have religious beliefs. Further, is it really up to the government to determine if someone has or does not have religious beliefs? I'd be happy to debate this issue separately. I can not see a court ruling that a religious belief does not exist. If we are talking legally, in this case, they have a sincere belief. For the record, I'm speaking from a legal perspective. My personal opinion, does not matter. I've said repeatedly. I do not personally agree with hobby lobbies stance in this case, however, I do respect their right to exercise their beliefs.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/13-354_5436.pdf
Bull*****. Just saying they are not relevant, does not make them not relevant. I'm sorry you do not hold that kind of status to make such a determination. You've provided no evidence to suggest the financial implications are not relevant. The only thing you've posted is in an inaccurate interpretation of law. Honestly, go read the law, it clearly states government action....a government action can be a fine, a law, a mandate, etc etc. I really hope its ignorance when interpreting "action" as opposed to making a disingenuous and narrow interpretation of government action to suit your argument.
Employees have the freedom to quit hobby lobby. As long as they can quit hobby lobby, which they can, their medical decision are not being restricted. As long as they can access the contraceptives, they are not being restricted. You keep saying this stuff and ignoring the reality that hobby lobby employees are free to quit if they feel their decisions are being restricted. Not paying for something does not mean I'm stopping people from accessing something. If I do not buy a soda for my friend, it does not mean I'm restricting his ability to get soda. He still can get soda. The access to soda has not changed, its still in the vending machine. He just has to find a way to pay for it. With that said, it is funny you have no problems the government restricting the green's family from exercising their religion with their company that they own. Let's put it this way, can the government mandate the green family to pay for abortions through their company for their employees. Its the same exact issue. I suspect you believe the government should and has the power to do this. I believe the government should not have this power to force the green family to pay for things that are contrary to their religious views. Besides that, companies have the power to restrict things. They can restrict you from smoking, they can restrict you from talking, they can restrict you from sitting, walking, etc etc. What makes you believe the company does not have the ability or right to restrict things? They can restrict bonuses, they can restrict pay raises....it goes on and on and on. I guess it's the fact they are using religion to restrict things that has you all up in a tizzy and not the fact they are restricting something. An argument concerning a company restricting things is rather poor....do better next time.
Lets get one ******* thing straight. Nothing about what the ACA guarantees is earned, it is mandated and given to the people by order of the government. How can you honestly argue a defacto entitlement is "earned" astounds me. it actually pisses me off that you claim people have earned this mandated contraceptive care. If this is not the most infuriating thing you've ever said.....earned. Bull*****.
Except were not talking "practicing their religion" we are talking about exercising their religion. In other words, making decisions in the name or under the auspices of their religion. They own a company. It stand to reason when you remove an ability for them to exercise their religious beliefs it removes an ability to exercise their religion.
Jesus man, in this case, its not about their religious beliefs being under attack is about the ability to exercise religious beliefs. exercise, exercise exercise that belief. I do not doubt you that there are nefarious people who use religion as out. Those people, while disturbing, does not invalidate the ones who do have sincere claims.
https://www.google.com/#q=475 million hobby lobby
what the ****? Have you done any research? I do not disagree there is an automatic a violation of someones rights. This is not one of those small violations.
slippery slope fallacy. The world wont end. The reality is we live in a politically sensitive society. Sure they will be some but to most, its not worth the risk of alienating the employees or their customers. I must reiterate, their a distinct difference between an private company and public. A CEO of a public company has an interest to his investors, not religion. A owner of a company has a vested interest in being righteous in his day to day running of his company.
Interestingly enough, if we did not have the ACA, this would not be an issue.
-----------------------------------------------------
You know there is a simple solution to this. Why not provide a cash consideration employees consistent with the cost of the coverage for the four contraceptives then the employees can use that to purchase insurance for these certain contraceptives, if they so desire.
-----------------------
Finally, many, many times you've stated that my words were not proof of something. I'd like to ask you who the made you the judge of what is proof and what is not proof. I'm not looking for your approval. I'm looking for you to explain why it's not proof. You wont do that. I can say with near certianty that most things i say, outside of personal opinion, can be supported with both logical and credible sources. You making statement of facts relies on your opinion, which, forgive me, I don't trust.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Your goals are your own. The company is a tool. There are rules and regulations to use this tool. That the company owner sets themselves additional rules for how they operate is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant to the overall legal issue here. The company is merely a tool of its owners and we have law governing how those tools may be used.
The rationale of the people making those rules is somewhat irrelevant, barring them violating labor laws.
Also, the CEO stepped down from mozilla because of pressures that led him to believe he wasnt going to be able to his job and would lose the company money. He was not fired.
Hobby lobbies managements sincerity is a moot point and I have repeatedly not addressed it. There is a clear difference between people who manage hobby lobby having religious beliefs and the corporation itself having them.
The scope has not been changed. These are disparate topics. Do not conflate them.
The financial burden of their non-compliance is irrelevant to the sherbert test, indeed. Only their financial burden of complying with the law. There is no substantial financial burden from complying with the law, ergo, your financial argument is irrelevant.
See above, the fines are irrelevant to any sort of case you can make because the sherbert test is financial cost of complying with the law.
I can not acknowledge that quite simply. Because you are equivocating between two groups. Hobby Lobby as a legal entity and the people who manage it. From a legal perspective, the thing we are arguing about, corporations do not have religious views. Their management can, but the corporation itself does not have a religious view. I could go without the constant repetition of your core claim. I'd hate to see Blinking Spirit invoke the stalled debate rule here. Stop equivocating between two distance legal entities.
Noting makes them different? Well damn, it is simply outrageous that they weren't granted a waiver then. Unless, of course, there are, in fact, differences which you either don't wish to share with me, dishonesty, or that you are unaware of, ignorance.
Which is it Billy? From your own statement the only two options here are dishonesty or ignorance. Choose one?
Also, where are you getting this nonsense about profits from? See, this is why I ask you to actual make your cases succinctly and directly to me. You keep getting me confused with someone else. Hell, you keep saying that nothing makes them different and then start ranting about for profit institutions. I wonder if thats a clue to what makes em different.
lol, the grammar here is truly hilarious.
And no, wrong again Billy. I've kept that in mind and my first reply in this thread specifically dealt with it. The problem is your equivocation between what the owner does and what the company does. They are not the same.
Care to try again?
The distinction between officers of the company and the owners is an important distinction? Lol. In some cases, sure, but Hobby Lobby is a family owned business. The owners and the officers are one and the same. The CEO founded it.
And I can prove, quite easily, that any given company doesn't have a religious belief. Its not the law. Thats what Hobby Lobby is trying to do, to get the law changed. A corporation is a legal construct, it has no mind. It is a tool used by the people running it to accomplish a task. The people who make up Hobby Lobbies management and owners are southern baptists. This does not make the corporation a southern baptist.
Look, if you are going to insist that this is a legal opinion, then you need to actually do the due diligence because your entire argument is an equivocation between the beliefs of members of a corporation with the corporation itself having those beliefs. It'd be like saying that someone being born to Christian parents automatically makes them a Christian at birth. There is no will to decide.
A corporation is a tool. Nothing more. Its a really fancy legal tool, but they are principally used for the insurance of property and to allow for a proper continuation of ownership rights.
Not to mention that why should we let a corporations religious views, if it even has them, supercede the religious views of the employees who are, in fact, people of the flesh and blood variety.
I grow somewhat tired of explaining to you, over and over again, the difference between the financial burden of complying with the law verus not complying. If you want to be able to claim to base your arguments on the law, why not start with properly understanding the sherbert act?
That they could, in theory, quit is irrelevant. Some of these people found their insurance taken when the Greens discovered this in the first place. What of the interuptions? What of the people in small towns for whom changing employment isn't feasible? What of the people who, if the Greens get their way, other companies owned by conservative Christians make similar edicts against birth control? “Just quit” is just not a feasible solution and when it comes to what causes more harm I'd rank “thousands of women needing to quit their jobs and find other work to, hopefully, get access to contraceptive care” at significantly more of a problem than “Hobby Lobby provides legally mandated health coverage”
When it comes to health care in the United States not paying for something is, in fact, denying that care to their employees. Some contraceptive care is expensive. Expensive to the point where low income people cannot afford those kinds of contraceptives without insurance coverage. Your soda analogy is terrible and I'm pretty sure you know that. The price is not equivalent. The need is not equivalent. Honestly Billy, did you type that up thinking it was some great analogy?
Also, the government is not making the green family, per se, pay for it. The corporation pays for it. Again, Hobby Lobby, the corporation, is a distinct legal entity.
Health Care, as part of the benefits package that an employee receives from their employer, is an earned benefit. All the ACA does is modify how insurance is packaged and sold. It is not an entitlement. None of what you've said here is true as it relates to Hobby Lobby. You simply do not know what you are talking about.
Semantics aside, distinct legal entities, etc etc
Are mormons allowed to legally practice polygamy in the united states?
'
Oh look, the number for not complying. Irrelevant.
Not the slippery slope fallacy. Thats where A leads to B and C.
This is where A being made legal means that more people will feel free to engage in A
Different things.
And anyway, this is still so irrelevant I can barely fathom why you're wasting your time saying it.
The logistics of that would be significantly harder to do than to simply have it be part of their health coverage. The simplest solution is that Hobby Lobby continues paying for its old insurance plans, the ones that coverage all facets of medical care. How does one determine the cash amount? Does Hobby Lobby still pay for it? Well, *****, they are still paying for birth control they don't like. Is it a rebate? Hobby Lobby is still going to feel likes its paying for contraception. Is it a monetary amount specifically for paying for contraception? Well, dang, Hobby Lobby is still going to feel likes its paying for contraception.
The simple fact of the matter is, Billy, that for the employees of Hobby Lobby to get their full health coverage in a way consistent with American Law that Hobby Lobby is going to have to do what they were doing a few months ago and just pay for what they are legally beholden to.
and so what does that mean in regards to this statement being true?:
And how does this or the link you provided relate to what LordOwlington and billy were talking about? Because they are talking about corporate personhood in a literal sense. Billy is arguing that they are literally people and therefore deserving of the same legal rights as a flesh and blood person.
okay, so what?
You do not get to decide what's relevant or not relevant. That the company owner exercising their religion while operating their company is very much the relevant legal issue.
We also have laws protecting ones right to exercise region. This law is not interpreted as being able to exercise their religion with out tools. Show me a law that says you can not use a tool to exercise your religion. You have no legal standing to argue the irrelevancy of a company being used to exercise religious beliefs.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
No I'm not. I'm arguing a company can exercise a religious beliefs.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I keep seeing this claim being made, and it's not correct. "Compelling government interest" has a highly specialized meaning in constitutional law, and it is an almost impossibly rigorous standard. ("For example, in roe v. wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973), the state interest in protecting unborn children was not compelling enough to overcome a woman's right to privacy.")
Basically a state/government interest is only compelling if it's critical and necessary to do things like save lives or protect national security. The government almost certainly could not show a compelling state interest here. If the government wins, it will be because the court decides this test does not apply.
Again, the standard for a compelling interest is insanely high. It's the same standard that's used in strict scrutiny analysis, meaning that it's the same standard the government has to meet if it wants to discriminate on the basis of race.
In the case that preceeded the Religious Freedom Resporation Act, the court held that strict scrutiny did not apply to regulating religious beliefs. Scalia's majority opinion said that applying the strict scrutiny test to religious freedoms would create "a private right to ignore generally applicable laws" and would "open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." In other words, Scalia was noting that the compelling interest test is so high that almost no laws or regulations can pass it.
But congress passed the RFRA in response, which (as you noted) applies the strict scrutiny test. There are very few SCOTUS cases that find a compelling state interest. You have to be doing something like saving lots of lives or protecting the nation from foreign attack.
Also, it's important to note that the "compelling state interest" test was not at play in the 2012 challenge to the ACA. SCOTUS found that the ACA was a constitutionally-authorized tax, so there was no requirement to show any kind of special state interest.
You're welcome!
I think Hobby Lobby is favored to win, but if they lose I would guess that it will be for one of two reasons:
1. SCOTUS decides that the RFRA is unconstitutional. This is a possibility since it already stuck down the portions that apply to states.
2. SCOTUS decides that companies can never have religious beliefs. This is less likely I think, since SCOTUS is very big on corporate personhood right now.
There is close to zero chance that the government would win on a compelling interest argument. I have not read the briefs, but I would be quite surprised if they wasted more than a sentence of their word limit trying to argue this.
Understanding this makes me wonder why the government would not accommodate Hobby Lobby in some way. This can not be the only way they can implement mandated certain contraceptive care (not that agree it should be mandated). They seem so rigid in wanting to prove they can limit all instances of exercising religious beliefs when interacting with laws. This underlying implication has me concerned. It does not seem the government wants a compromise with any entity that exercise their religious belief. They effectively want to make this right irrelevant. I think there must be a standard that limits the governments ability impede upon a persons or entities ability to exercise religious beliefs.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
If they compromise with Hobby Lobby on this issue they are worried they will have to compromise with every business claiming a religious exception, including on more extreme issues. This is what Scalia was worried about in Smith. (Remember that Scalia is a conservative and devout Catholic, so he normally sides with religion; if he's worried about the religious exceptions running rampant, he may have a point.)
Just because the government cannot prove a compelling interest does not mean they will lose this case, however. They may get the RFRA invalidated or may get the Court to hold that companies can't have religious beliefs, as I mentioned above.
So even though I side with Hobby Lobby's right here, I don't think the government "wants to make this right irrelevant." I think they just want to make their lives easier by not having to manage a bunch of religious exception claims.
On the flipside, I feel like this kind of rhetoric over-dramatizes the issue. So your Jehova's Wintess employers don't want to pay for blood transfusions. Why is that a problem, if you know about that going in? It's not like they're saying you aren't allowed to have a blood transfusion. They just aren't going to shell out to cover it.
Let's say you're considering a job downtown in a major city. The boss tells you it's going to cost $10 per day to park downtown, and that the business won't cover this cost. So you decide whether it's worth the $10 per day, and then you either accept the job or don't.
You sign up to work for a JW business, and they say "we don't pay for blood transfusions." So you figure out the cost of adding that coverage to your policy is $X per day, and then you either accept the job or don't.
I can't engage with you until you're willing to represent the issues correctly. Hobby Lobby is not "dictat[ing] what procedures [its employees] can and can't recieve." Hobby Lobby is refusing to pay for these procedures.
I have corrected you on this already in this thread. I understand that you think it's nitpicking, but it's incredibly central to the debate. If Hobby Lobby was telling its employees that they were forbidden from using or purchasing birth control on their own, I would have a completely opposite view of this case.
I am representing these issues correctly.
You were talking about Jehovah's witnesses there. Not only that, but as ECP has said, a hobby lobby win sets a legal president that other businesses can site as reasons to deny coverage for things like blood transfusions or organ transplants. You opened the door here, so answer the questions please.
On the hobby lobby, suppose that was a woman that was working there and restricted to work there due to economic circumstances. Plan B pills around here cost about $60. Denying coverage through insurance is the same thing as denying someone access if they can't afford it out of pocket. Yes, some people could afford it out of pocket - but not everyone.