You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 07, 2016, 02:51:50 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: The Supreme Court ruling for Hobby Lobby  (Read 2657 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The Supreme Court ruling for Hobby Lobby
« Reply #75 on: August 23, 2014, 03:36:42 AM »
            Still going, rather as predicted I would say.  It's kind of looking to become a front for the right to oppose anyone who wants birth control, working at corporations where owners oppose birth control itself...  On the rationale that it's a "corporate" health plan and therefore content should not be up to the employee (let alone the government) at all?  Huh.

            And there are commentators fielding the "If you want contraception, you don't have to work there" defense...  As if there are an infinite number of employers, or for that matter an infinite range of religious preferences of employers, available everywhere.  And as if switching and finding jobs were a simple matter with no disruption and risks.

       
Quote

Seeking to quell a politically charged controversy, the Obama administration announced new measures Friday to allow religious non-profits and some companies to opt out of paying for birth control for female employees, while still ensuring those employees have access to contraception.

Even so, the accommodations may not fully satisfy religious groups who oppose any system that makes them complicit in providing coverage they believe is immoral.

Effective immediately, the US will start allowing faith-affiliated charities, colleges and hospitals to notify the government – rather than their insurers – that they object to birth control on religious grounds. Then the government will instruct a non-profit’s insurer or third-party administrators to take on the responsibility of paying for the birth control, at no cost to the employer.

.....

The latest proposals, which were expected to be formally released later Friday, will likely run up against the same objections, because they still enable employees to receive contraception at no extra charge through their health plans – one of a range of preventive services required under President Barack Obama’s healthcare law.

“We will be studying the new rule with our clients, but if today’s announcement is just a different way for the government to hijack the health plans of religious ministries, it is unlikely to end the litigation,” said Mark Rienzi, senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which has represented both Hobby Lobby and Wheaton.


Offline Valthazar

  • Writer ͏͏● Educator ● Gamer ● Roleplayer ● Debater ● Tech Connoisseur ● Gym Rat ● Procrastinator ● As they say, "A simple PM may lead to lifelong friendship" ▬▬▬▬
  • Suspended
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Location: United States
  • Gender: Male
  • Proceed and be bold. Embrace your insecurities.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Supreme Court ruling for Hobby Lobby
« Reply #76 on: August 23, 2014, 09:44:05 PM »
Still going, rather as predicted I would say.  It's kind of looking to become a front for the right to oppose anyone who wants birth control, working at corporations where owners oppose birth control itself...  On the rationale that it's a "corporate" health plan and therefore content should not be up to the employee (let alone the government) at all?  Huh.

All employees will still have access to their desired contraception at no extra cost to them.  This entire issue is simply about who pays - not access, as the media has attempted to spin it.

Someone earlier mentioned that cost shifting to the government (as in these cases with religious for-profts and non-profits opting out), may actually be a backdoor progression to a single-payer system over the years.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The Supreme Court ruling for Hobby Lobby
« Reply #77 on: August 23, 2014, 10:23:37 PM »
          I dunno, I suppose it depends whether anyone sues again with claims that they simply have religious objections to being required to answer anything that leads to contraception. 

          If they can refuse to pay for procedures they don't support on religious grounds, who's to say whatever they do have to pay for?  It seems like much of the South has elected people who might even see fit to find "religious" objections to having a federal government, some of the time.


Offline Valthazar

  • Writer ͏͏● Educator ● Gamer ● Roleplayer ● Debater ● Tech Connoisseur ● Gym Rat ● Procrastinator ● As they say, "A simple PM may lead to lifelong friendship" ▬▬▬▬
  • Suspended
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Location: United States
  • Gender: Male
  • Proceed and be bold. Embrace your insecurities.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Supreme Court ruling for Hobby Lobby
« Reply #78 on: August 23, 2014, 10:31:05 PM »
It's not my assumption, it's a fact.  All employees will continue to have contraceptive coverage. 

Even if closely-held religious for-profits and religious non-profits continue to have further religious objections, the costs are simply transferred over to the government.  The employee will not lose any coverage options.

Some may say this will be paid through tax revenue - and that is a fact.  But government-subsidized healthcare systems, such as single-payer, function in this manner.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The Supreme Court ruling for Hobby Lobby
« Reply #79 on: August 24, 2014, 03:05:31 AM »
          It's a "fact" for just as long as no one succeeds in a legal challenge using Hobby Lobby to undercut the health care legislation. 

          I will be quite surprised if someone doesn't at least try something like that in the courts.  And with the current Supreme Court at least (from corporate "personhood" onward), I don't think we can be certain what would come out of that. 

          On another front, the decision is already being pointed to as an excuse to carve exemptions from even executive orders -- particularly one regarding anti-discrimination rules for LGBT in the workplace.  Alito, for his part, has already been rather nastily slient on just such issues:  He came out saying this should not be used to enable racial discrimination in employment --- while completely neglecting Ginsburg's simultaneous concerns about sex, gender presentation, and sexual orientation discrimination in a way that leaves a rather upsetting silence (as mentioned in the Newsweek article referenced below)...  And this obviously isn't the only issue that is now thrown open.   

          Although personally, I suspect even the Supreme Court might be a little shy about treading on executive orders as such like this.  Or I hope so.  But who can say. 

Quote
That whole Hobby Lobby decision is already prompting religious leaders to push for changes to a coming executive order enforcing the dead-in-the-water Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) on federal contractors. The act is meant to ban employers from discriminating on the basis of sexuality, and though it passed the Senate, the Republican-dominated House has refused to take it up.
.........
The question before Obama boils down to this: Should the federal government essentially hire organizations that refuse to hire LGBT employees on the basis of their sexual orientation? Wouldn’t that make the federal government complicit in discrimination, no matter what religious doctrine that discrimination is based on?

Ginsburg's point was precisely that since new standards were applied in the present case, now others can ask for the same standards to be applied on any number of other things that were previously decided or presumed to be so.  And it hasn't been determined what will come out if such new challenges arise.

Even some gay rights groups that had previously accepted the ENDA bill, for example, in providing exemptions for certain religious groups, are feeling the same way: Without knowing how such provisions would be interpreted in light of the latest case, they would sooner abandon the whole bill than risk passing it in an environment where the bar for testing and obtaining any such exemptions has just been changed.

           Now I suppose if you believe that in fact, nothing particular has been changed and the present case does not go against prior practice, then we'll just have to disagree.  I don't really feel that there was much of a thorough answer to what I mentioned about that before.  But there it is.  It just might take more of a legal historian than most here wish to play at, to pick through it and add something to qualify or elaborate matters more? I dunno.
       
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 03:35:24 AM by kylie »

Offline consortium11

Re: The Supreme Court ruling for Hobby Lobby
« Reply #80 on: August 24, 2014, 05:02:00 AM »
And with the current Supreme Court at least (from corporate "personhood" onward), I don't think we can be certain what would come out of that.

Corporate Personhood has been a concept in the US since at least 1888 and more likely 1819 (with Dartmouth College vs Woodward). Citizens United expanded it to include free speech rights but the concept was around long before that.




The thing with Hobby Lobby is that it isn't as wide as people think/fear/hope (depending on your persuasion) it is.

For the sake of argument let us assume that it's correct in saying that closely-held corporations can have a religious character and beliefs. And that a new piece of federal legislation runs counter to those beliefs.

What now?

Well, you apply the  Religious Freedom Restoration Act 1993, that states:

Quote
In general Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

Being forced to pay for abortifacient drugs which run counter to ones religious belief strikes me as a pretty substantial burden on the exercise of one's religion, especially when not funding those drugs (either specifically or by dropping coverage entirely) would mandate significant costs. I note also the case of Adams v. Commissioner which held that having to pay federal taxes which in turn went on the military was a substantial burden on the exercise of religion of a devout Quaker due to their pacifism. The Quaker didn't buy any weapons, train any soldiers, send them into combat or even decide whether to buy any weapons, train any soldiers or send them into combat but by being required to fund those decisions if they were made their exercise of religion was being substantially burdened.

But, despite that, Quakers still have to pay federal taxes. And that's because of the exceptions contained in subsection (b) of the RFRA.

Section (b) holds:

Quote
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

In Hobby Lobby the court took it as read that was a compelling governmental interest to provide cost-free access to the drugs in question. Perhaps the most unappreciated aspect of the case is that from Hobby Lobby onwards any objections along the lines of "it's not the government's business" to deal with these sort of drugs immediately falls apart.

Where the government's case fell apart was in the second part of the exception; was it the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling interest? And the issue the government faced here was that it had already included a less restrictive option which they argued didn't include any further cost burden to the government. In the above mentioned Quaker case, the plantiff's case failed because there was a compelling governmental interest in funding military expenditure and there was no less restrictive way of doing so then taxes. In Hobby Lobby the government was able to demonstrate an interest but provided pretty much no evidence that the planned approach was the least restrictive way of furthering that interest (and, as mentioned above, had actually included a less restrictive way as an option).

On a side note, as Valthazar mentions, in the lead judgement Alito actually notes that a system where the government funded these drugs through tax revenue... i.e. single-payer... would avoid all of these issues. It's a powerful obita-dicta in favour of a single-payer system and not that far off an actual recommendation.

And let's also remember that Hobby Lobby wasn't about whether people should have access to the drugs in question; it was about who should fund that access, the employer, the insurer or the government. What Hobby Lobby says is that in the case of closely-held corporations with religious beliefs that would be substantially burdened by funding access to those drugs, the corporation shouldn't pay for it and either the insurer or government should.

So, let's apply the logic used in Hobby Lobby to the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Is preventing discrimination in hiring or employment on the grounds of sexuality or gender identity a "substantial burden on the exercise of religion". Frankly, I'm not sure it is and what links one might find are tenuous as best. While in both Hobby Lobby and Adams there's a direct objection (with the plaintiff being required to fund something that goes against their religious beliefs), there's no such direct objection in a case relating to gender identity or sexuality.

But even if it is viewed as being a substantial burden on the exercise of religion, the exceptions come into play. I don't see how one could argue there isn't a governmental interest in preventing discrimination in employment and I can't think of a less restrictive way of preventing discrimination in employment then, well, simply preventing it. In Hobby Lobby there were other, less restrictive options, for funding access to the drugs in question... one which the government had actually already proposed and put in place. What other options are available for preventing discrimination?

Offline Valthazar

  • Writer ͏͏● Educator ● Gamer ● Roleplayer ● Debater ● Tech Connoisseur ● Gym Rat ● Procrastinator ● As they say, "A simple PM may lead to lifelong friendship" ▬▬▬▬
  • Suspended
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Location: United States
  • Gender: Male
  • Proceed and be bold. Embrace your insecurities.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Supreme Court ruling for Hobby Lobby
« Reply #81 on: August 25, 2014, 06:05:22 PM »
It's a "fact" for just as long as no one succeeds in a legal challenge using Hobby Lobby to undercut the health care legislation.

This ruling does not undercut aspects of the ACA.  The ruling was with regards to whether or not religious for-profits should be asked to pay for healthcare services which violate their religious beliefs - and had nothing to do with altering the minimum standards of coverage as outlined by the ACA.

The ACA explicitly states what coverage options are required to be included within all health insurance plans sold in the US.  The Hobby Lobby ruling was never contesting this - at all.  I can't emphasize enough that this ruling was with regard to who pays - not whether or not employees will have access to contraception.

The Hobby Lobby ruling was, however, a significant milestone in interpreting the scope of religious exemption of cost permitted under the religious exemption clause of the ACA.

On another front, the decision is already being pointed to as an excuse to carve exemptions from even executive orders -- particularly one regarding anti-discrimination rules for LGBT in the workplace.

Actually, it is not the Right which is pushing for anything, as much as it is those on the Left trying to ensure that previously existing religious exemptions are not interpreted in the same manner as Hobby Lobby.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would have made it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.  It is very important to note that ENDA contained a religious exemption in this mandate, similar to that present in other federal legislation, including the ACA.  The Republican majority in the House voted ENDA down, and it failed to pass Congress.  However, ironically, ENDA would have been ideal for the Religious Right, given the transpiring of events.

As a result of ENDA failing to pass, President Obama signed an executive order which banned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity for federal contractors.  However, in response to the Hobby Lobby ruling, Obama made sure that his executive order did not contain the same religious exemptions that were already present in the failed ENDA proposal, and the ACA.  It instead narrows the scope of religious exemption to, "religious organizations that discriminate based on religious beliefs."  Meaning that a Catholic school involved with federal contracts will be able to fire employees on the basis of orientation or identity, but not for-profits federal contractors.

As a result, no one on the Right is really pushing to "carve exemptions" into the law, as much as those on the Left are removing many of the existing religious exemptions which were already contained within ENDA, the ACA, and the vast majority of other federal legislation.

As a result, one could certainly make an effective argument then that the Obama administration is indeed making a concerted effort to pass legislation which drastically undercuts religious freedom, in comparison to many other pieces of federal legislation.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2014, 06:25:38 PM by Valthazar »

Offline TaintedAndDelish

Re: The Supreme Court ruling for Hobby Lobby
« Reply #82 on: August 28, 2014, 03:15:38 AM »

Can this ruling be applied to taxes too?

Could such a corporation claim that their religion is against war, medicine and psychiatry, and therefore claim that their taxes should be lowered accordingly to account for this? 




Offline Sabby

Re: The Supreme Court ruling for Hobby Lobby
« Reply #83 on: August 28, 2014, 03:53:59 AM »
I wouldn't be surprised if that technically applied. This is exactly why I oppose this joke.

Offline consortium11

Re: The Supreme Court ruling for Hobby Lobby
« Reply #84 on: August 28, 2014, 06:33:18 AM »
Can this ruling be applied to taxes too?

Could such a corporation claim that their religion is against war, medicine and psychiatry, and therefore claim that their taxes should be lowered accordingly to account for this?

I wouldn't be surprised if that technically applied. This is exactly why I oppose this joke.

You're both about 15 years behind the law.

In 1999 this exact point came up in Adams v. Commissioner, a case I've talked about in my previous posts in this topic.

Adams was a devout Quaker and argued that because federal income taxes went on military expenditure they were in breach of RFRA as they substantially burdened her religious belief. The court agreed that they substantially burdened her religious belief but that the that uniform, mandatory participation in the tax system, irrespective of religious belief, is a compelling governmental interest and that there was no less restrictive way of doing so. As such her case failed.

Offline Sabby

Re: The Supreme Court ruling for Hobby Lobby
« Reply #85 on: August 28, 2014, 06:43:50 AM »
I'm glad they saw reason and didn't cave to such a ridiculous request, though I wonder how that case would have gone if she were a Roman Catholic.

Offline consortium11

Re: The Supreme Court ruling for Hobby Lobby
« Reply #86 on: August 28, 2014, 07:23:52 AM »
I'm glad they saw reason and didn't cave to such a ridiculous request, though I wonder how that case would have gone if she were a Roman Catholic.

Basically the same way; a similar case involved Roman Catholic students opposing to university fees as part of that fee went to providing abortion services. They lost their case for the same reasons (and the court drew a direct comparison with taxation in that case); while there was a burden on their exercise of religion there was a compelling interest in providing such services and having the fees be universally mandated while there was also no less restrictive way of implementing them.

Offline Sabby

Re: The Supreme Court ruling for Hobby Lobby
« Reply #87 on: August 28, 2014, 07:43:29 AM »
I'm surprised they didn't bring up they they chose to enroll, and thus agreed to those fees.

Offline ImaginedScenes

Re: The Supreme Court ruling for Hobby Lobby
« Reply #88 on: August 31, 2014, 01:53:58 AM »
What happened to the simple idea of my control ending when it affects your ability to control your own life? It's not like HL employees can just up and get jobs elsewhere. It's not like HL had volunteered to add coverage and then removed it. HL is asking for special permission to deny people basic care coverage that every other company has to provide.

Religious arguments don't work here anyyway. My son wants to be a Jew? It's not my right as owner of my house to say he can only be an atheist while living here, or at least can't have any Jewish stuff or talk about his beliefs while living with me. That's putting an undue burden on his religious freedom. My freedom ends where his starts.

It isn't bas big of a deal, but health coverage is just like serving anyone who comes into a public business. You can't just refuse to serve someone because you don't like how they look or what they believe, because that places an undue burden on them.

You might not agree that contraceptives should be considered part of healthcare, but you should at least agree that no business should get to turn their employees into second-class citizens by offerring them less than what is required for all businesses except ones that are so small and unusual that they have little impact in a community. I think that the law says you have few requirements if your business has less than 30 employees.

Offline vtboy

Re: The Supreme Court ruling for Hobby Lobby
« Reply #89 on: August 31, 2014, 07:51:23 AM »
What happened to the simple idea of my control ending when it affects your ability to control your own life? It's not like HL employees can just up and get jobs elsewhere. It's not like HL had volunteered to add coverage and then removed it. HL is asking for special permission to deny people basic care coverage that every other company has to provide.

I agree that contraceptives are appropriately included among healthcare benefits and that businesses should not be permitted to opt out of healthcare requirements on religious grounds. Nevertheless, I hope you understand that your arguments actually favor Hobby Lobby's position.

From the viewpoint of the family that owns Hobby Lobby, the birth control mandate is an intrusion by government on their right to control their lives -- in this case, to run their business in accordance with religious conscience. However you come out on the question of whether it is good or bad policy to allow an employer to avoid legal obligation on religious ground, it is quite a stretch to claim the regulation in issue was consistent with the precepts of classical liberalism you espouse. Hobby Lobby's owners were not attempting to bar the company's employees from use of abortifacients; they were only objecting to being required to pay for it. In fact, the Supreme Court's decision was explicitly grounded in the existence of an adequate alternative to the employer mandate in issue which would be less intrusive on the owners' religious liberty.

There are a lot of reasons why allowing employers special religious dispensation to disregard legal mandates is a bad idea, but I don't see how the precepts of classical liberalism support them. 

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Supreme Court ruling for Hobby Lobby
« Reply #90 on: August 31, 2014, 10:54:42 AM »
It isn't bas big of a deal, but health coverage is just like serving anyone who comes into a public business. You can't just refuse to serve someone because you don't like how they look or what they believe, because that places an undue burden on them.

Actually, many businesses have the ability to refuse service.  This is what allows bars to eject the overly drunk, or the local McDonalds to eject the guy who was telling children that Santa Claus wasn't real.  (No matter what your personal beliefs, that's a conversation that should be left to the parents, not some random guy shoving pamphlets around).

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The Supreme Court ruling for Hobby Lobby
« Reply #91 on: September 01, 2014, 08:25:00 AM »
         I'm rather skeptical this will get a serious hearing but...  Recall my much earlier posts about the analysis that Hobby Lobby suggests a new level of legal scrutiny should be applied to religious freedom complaints, and that therefore the field is open for (ahem) God knows what [and whoever else knows either, but I couldn't resist] ? 

         I feel that never got a good response and the rest is a lot of saying oh, but it hasn't been tested that way yet, see this and that specific case as things stand just now before anyone questions it and brings up Hobby Lobby to do so...  While what people are concerned about is more, the apparent likelihood that now it could be.  Whereas before we knew more how those tests worked; the subjects had already been done to some considerable extent using older test standards.

     

       

Offline Sabby

Re: The Supreme Court ruling for Hobby Lobby
« Reply #92 on: September 01, 2014, 11:20:23 AM »
What happened to the simple idea of my control ending when it affects your ability to control your own life?

My personal favourite.

Quote from: Matt Dillahunty
My freedom to swing my arm ends at their nose

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Supreme Court ruling for Hobby Lobby
« Reply #93 on: September 01, 2014, 01:14:20 PM »
Or more originally, Zechariah Chafee - although that quote is often attributed to Oliver Wendel Holmes Jr.

Offline ImaginedScenes

Re: The Supreme Court ruling for Hobby Lobby
« Reply #94 on: September 01, 2014, 08:21:25 PM »
Quote
I agree that contraceptives are appropriately included among healthcare benefits and that businesses should not be permitted to opt out of healthcare requirements on religious grounds. Nevertheless, I hope you understand that your arguments actually favor Hobby Lobby's position.

Only if you think that freedom means absolute freedom. The difference between what HL imposing restrictions and the government mandating coverage is that the government is looking out for the health of its citizens and the economy of the country. A government has more to manage than a company, and has to set standards universally rather than on a case-by-case basis. The government is also theoretically beholden to the democratic decisions of the people and not to a few shareholders with a lot of power. So yeah the government can force everyone to buy healthcare and car insurance and so on while a company can't. That makes sense. The government can also decide what all companies can't do inside the country. That also makes sense.

Quote
Actually, many businesses have the ability to refuse service.  This is what allows bars to eject the overly drunk, or the local McDonalds to eject the guy who was telling children that Santa Claus wasn't real.  (No matter what your personal beliefs, that's a conversation that should be left to the parents, not some random guy shoving pamphlets around).

Meant things like skin color and religion and disability. Stuff that can't be changed and is (or will soon be) protected by the government. Like service dogs or blindness. Totally different from kicking a guy out for telling people they're going to hell or kicking a woman out for bringing her pets in.

Offline vtboy

Re: The Supreme Court ruling for Hobby Lobby
« Reply #95 on: September 03, 2014, 02:38:31 PM »
Only if you think that freedom means absolute freedom. The difference between what HL imposing restrictions and the government mandating coverage is that the government is looking out for the health of its citizens and the economy of the country. A government has more to manage than a company, and has to set standards universally rather than on a case-by-case basis. The government is also theoretically beholden to the democratic decisions of the people and not to a few shareholders with a lot of power. So yeah the government can force everyone to buy healthcare and car insurance and so on while a company can't. That makes sense. The government can also decide what all companies can't do inside the country. That also makes sense.

No, I don't think that freedom in this context means absolute freedom. Except perhaps the lunatic fringe, the most ardent advocates of reducing government regulation still see legitimacy, at a minimum, in government's power to proscribe bad acts (homicide, theft, etc.). But, I think you're missing the point. 

Your original contention was that granting Hobby Lobby a religious exemption from ACA employer requirements was an offense to "the simple idea of my control ending when it affects your ability to control your own life". Only in the most attenuated sense of the word, however, does resisting the imposition of a legal obligation to bestow a benefit on someone else constitute "control" of the other person's life. The only "control" at issue in the Hobby Lobby case was the government's mandate that the company do what its owners otherwise would not permit it to do -- i.e., pay for birth control which was religiously objectionable in their eyes. The company's employees were always free to choose whatever sorts of birth control they liked, without regard to their employer's preferences. Moreover, the exemption granted the company did not even result in financial burden to its employees, as the Supreme Court's decision turned on the existence of an alternative means of providing them the same coverage, without Hobby Lobby's participation.     

I don't dispute that government properly enjoys the power to legislate for the common good, even at the expense of individual liberties. Conversely, it may also protect those liberties from its own reach. With respect to the latter power, please recall that the religious exemption extended to Hobby Lobby was created by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a statute duly enacted by democratically elected legislators, and thus presumably reflective of the people's democratic decisions.

Offline Sho

Re: The Supreme Court ruling for Hobby Lobby
« Reply #96 on: September 04, 2014, 01:57:24 AM »
Oh If this goes on maybe I can sue two Texas corporations on religious grounds if they have a merger. If Both CEO's are male, because due to "corporate personhood" and gay marriage being illegal in Texas.

I love this. This is the best thing I've read all day :D

Offline Valthazar

  • Writer ͏͏● Educator ● Gamer ● Roleplayer ● Debater ● Tech Connoisseur ● Gym Rat ● Procrastinator ● As they say, "A simple PM may lead to lifelong friendship" ▬▬▬▬
  • Suspended
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2013
  • Location: United States
  • Gender: Male
  • Proceed and be bold. Embrace your insecurities.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Supreme Court ruling for Hobby Lobby
« Reply #97 on: September 04, 2014, 03:31:01 AM »
While there may be disagreement on the issue of religion in corporate personhood, I think it is unwise to completely ignore the many benefits that corporate personhood provides.

By permitting corporations to file its taxes as a separate 'person,' we are permitting the corporation to take on debt and financial liabilities in its own name.  In other words, if any of us owned shares of a company that is on the verge of bankruptcy, its debts and financial obligations will not fall on us.  We may lose our investment, but its windfall will not affect our credit ratings.  This is why corporations have credit ratings, just as people do.

If any executive (or "owner") of the corporation is found in violation of the law while acting on behalf of the corporation, he or she is the one who is prosecuted, and only his/her personal financials will be utilized in setting bail, charging fines, etc.  In other words, the corporation's financials will not be directly targeted by the court.  If corporate personhood did not exist, the owner's financial profile would be tied with the corporation's financial profile (for tax purposes), and thus, his criminal prosecution would result in severe financial repercussions for the corporation.  This is not desirable for any of us as investors or employees of the corporation.

Just as individuals can enter into contracts, a corporation can also do the same as a result of corporate personhood.  This permits corporations to participate in commercial activities as its own entity, without corresponding contractual obligations for shareholders.  If corporate personhood did not exist, any partnerships or contracts would be under the name of one (or more) shareholders.  That means that if executive officers or owners change (or are fired), any corresponding contracts with other businesses may also be in jeopardy.  By keeping business contracts directly tied to the corporation, transition of employees and ownership is much smoother.

Corporate personhood also enables corporations to sue and be sued as independent entities.  Well-run corporations often have an annual budget specifically intended for potential legal cases, and this is factored into the annual company financials (and factored into stock price).  The last thing we need is for stockholders to face the brunt of legal consequences of corporate decision-making.  A corporation losing a law suit, and its stock price taking a hit is far different from stockholders actually being asked to have a financial stake themselves in the proceedings.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2014, 03:34:30 AM by Valthazar »