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

[AvgGuyIA]

So you can decide to not pay your taxes or not follow child labor laws, or safety regulations if you claim it is a part of your faith?

No, idiot.
The state must show a compelling interest in over riding religious objections. There are none here, of course.

Yup. The burden is on the Statists...er, er, er State.

That won't really matter to three of the Justices. They'd declare genocide Constitutional if a dimocrap were behind it.

I think the good guys win this one, 6 - 3. Maybe even 7-2. But I've been wrong before.

Although, not all that often

. Expect justice Roberts being blackmailed again for his opinion to go against HL just like his decision to reverse himself and go for Obamacare.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

God...I'm sorry

But that makes no sense

To you and others who see no problem forcing others to pay for the aftermath of your nightly fun, no doubt that it doesn't make sense.

Married employees have nightly fun and they use contraception also

I used more contraception after I was married than before

And we thank you! Pa dah dump!

Heh heh... Just kidding.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Corporations are people, my friend. That's the line, as we have all heard it. Citizens United basically affirmed it.

Generally, this has been applied to political speech, nonetheless, it provides Freedom of Speech to Corporations -- but the question is: Are Corporations persons that can have a sincerely held religious belief?

In the recent mishmash of that ill-begotten AZ bill SB1062, one aspect was little touched on, mainly this:

See that there? What has been defined as a "Person" was amended to not only include "a religious assembly or institution" but also:

"ANY INDIVIDUAL, ASSOCIATION, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, CHURCH, RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY, OR INSTITUTION, ESTATE, TRUST, FOUNDATION OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY."

SB1062 - 512R - I Ver

The definition there is far broader in scope and applicability in that Corporations, et al, could have discriminated if they held sincerely held religious beliefs.

Which brings us to the recent SCOTUS cases up soon involving Hobby Lobby v Sebelius - and the other entities that are suing to be able to deny specific contraceptive coverage on religious beliefs grounds.

We are at crossroad where not only are for-profit corporate commercial entities and organizations considered to be persons regarding Freedom of Speech, but now the trend is to carve out laws to give these Corporations Freedom of Religion.

How do Corporations, fictitious persons under the law - practice religion? Can they go to Church? Do they partake in sacraments?
Should they be protected fully as a person under the cherished Free Exercise clause?


Do you think this trend to be something good for America?

Which trend are you talking about? I can show you 200 years of law that says that corporations have religious beliefs. The only trend I see is the attempt to rewrite history by people that have some sort of personal beef against religion. Personally, I think that trend is bad, but I doubt it will destroy America. What will destroy America is the fact that assholes, like you, insist on shoving their religion down other people's throats.

By the way, even the Obama administration has admitted that corporations actually do have religious beliefs. If they didn't he wouldn't have allowed churches to opt out of Obamacare based on those beliefs. I guess that makes you even more wrong that you thought, doesn't it?

That said, it actually doesn't matter if corporations have religious beliefs or not, people do. That is why the government has zero chance of winning the Hobby Lobby case.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Religious beliefs and devotions are formed in the “minds and hearts of individuals,” so said a recent court ruling.

How far can a fictitious entity that is invisible, intangible, existing only in contemplation of law and formed to create profits for it's shareholders go in exercising it's Freedom of Religion?

All the way, just as if it were a flesh and blood, mind and heart individual?

Yet you keep telling me that those individuals do not have the right to form beliefs you disagree with.

Interesting.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

you are confusing the rights of a corporation with the rights of the individuals who run the corporation. Must an individual pay for someone else's chosen birth control method or do they lost their rights upon being part of a corporate entity?

it doesn’t make any difference – whether corporations have the same rights as individuals, or if the question concerns the religious rights of individual corporate officers, as long as the primary focus and effect of a given measure is not to disadvantage religious freedom, which is the case with the aca, no religious rights have been violated (lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)).

That a ‘christian business’ perceives the requirement that it must afford comprehensive health insurance to its employees, including that of birth control, does not mean it’s being compelled to ‘violate’ its religious tenets, as the primary focus of the law is health insurance coverage, not prohibiting a given religious practice.

Damn, you never learn, do you.

READ THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT, ASSHOLE.

If that is too complicated for you, wait until the Hobby Lobby decision is handed down and then pretend you had the answer all along.

 

[rightwinger]

To you and others who see no problem forcing others to pay for the aftermath of your nightly fun, no doubt that it doesn't make sense.

Married employees have nightly fun and they use contraception also

I used more contraception after I was married than before

And we thank you! Pa dah dump!

Heh heh... Just kidding.

Just think Hobby Lobby....your married female employees who use your company paid contraception will not go out every year on maternity leave

Think of the money you will save

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Ah well....

Progressives have their own religion. It's called "science".

Which is why you are an idiot.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If this sort of religious exemption were legitimate, a Muslim who got hired to work at a convenience store could refuse to sell alcohol, claiming it as his religious belief, and the store wouldn't be able to fire him; they would have to either refrain from selling alcohol on his shift, or call in another person just to do it.

Umm, he can.

But thanks for proving you are an idiot.

 

[initforme]

What hobby lobby should do is exclude the "religious" aspect and just say they don't want to pay for something they don't want to pay for. It's called being honest. Perhaps they should try it. I really don't believe they care one way or the other if any of their employees are on the pill. In fact, according to the way American businesses complain, (I mean whine and cry like babies) about their employees missing work, they should be happy that a baby doesn't interfere with their employees ability to stock their shelves.

 

[dblack]

Dumb on dumb, with a nice shiny coating of dumb on top.

 

[paperview]

Corporations are people, my friend. That's the line, as we have all heard it. Citizens United basically affirmed it.

Generally, this has been applied to political speech, nonetheless, it provides Freedom of Speech to Corporations -- but the question is: Are Corporations persons that can have a sincerely held religious belief?

In the recent mishmash of that ill-begotten AZ bill SB1062, one aspect was little touched on, mainly this:

See that there? What has been defined as a "Person" was amended to not only include "a religious assembly or institution" but also:

"ANY INDIVIDUAL, ASSOCIATION, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, CHURCH, RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY, OR INSTITUTION, ESTATE, TRUST, FOUNDATION OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY."

SB1062 - 512R - I Ver

The definition there is far broader in scope and applicability in that Corporations, et al, could have discriminated if they held sincerely held religious beliefs.

Which brings us to the recent SCOTUS cases up soon involving Hobby Lobby v Sebelius - and the other entities that are suing to be able to deny specific contraceptive coverage on religious beliefs grounds.

We are at crossroad where not only are for-profit corporate commercial entities and organizations considered to be persons regarding Freedom of Speech, but now the trend is to carve out laws to give these Corporations Freedom of Religion.

How do Corporations, fictitious persons under the law - practice religion? Can they go to Church? Do they partake in sacraments?
Should they be protected fully as a person under the cherished Free Exercise clause?


Do you think this trend to be something good for America?

Which trend are you talking about? I can show you 200 years of law that says that corporations have religious beliefs. The only trend I see is the attempt to rewrite history by people that have some sort of personal beef against religion. Personally, I think that trend is bad, but I doubt it will destroy America. What will destroy America is the fact that assholes, like you, insist on shoving their religion down other people's throats.

By the way, even the Obama administration has admitted that corporations actually do have religious beliefs. If they didn't he wouldn't have allowed churches to opt out of Obamacare based on those beliefs. I guess that makes you even more wrong that you thought, doesn't it?

That said, it actually doesn't matter if corporations have religious beliefs or not, people do. That is why the government has zero chance of winning the Hobby Lobby case.

Never before have for-profit corporations been afforded religious exemptions.

NEVER.

 

[rightwinger]

Corporations are people, my friend. That's the line, as we have all heard it. Citizens United basically affirmed it.

Generally, this has been applied to political speech, nonetheless, it provides Freedom of Speech to Corporations -- but the question is: Are Corporations persons that can have a sincerely held religious belief?

In the recent mishmash of that ill-begotten AZ bill SB1062, one aspect was little touched on, mainly this:

See that there? What has been defined as a "Person" was amended to not only include "a religious assembly or institution" but also:

"ANY INDIVIDUAL, ASSOCIATION, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, CHURCH, RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY, OR INSTITUTION, ESTATE, TRUST, FOUNDATION OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY."

SB1062 - 512R - I Ver

The definition there is far broader in scope and applicability in that Corporations, et al, could have discriminated if they held sincerely held religious beliefs.

Which brings us to the recent SCOTUS cases up soon involving Hobby Lobby v Sebelius - and the other entities that are suing to be able to deny specific contraceptive coverage on religious beliefs grounds.

We are at crossroad where not only are for-profit corporate commercial entities and organizations considered to be persons regarding Freedom of Speech, but now the trend is to carve out laws to give these Corporations Freedom of Religion.

How do Corporations, fictitious persons under the law - practice religion? Can they go to Church? Do they partake in sacraments?
Should they be protected fully as a person under the cherished Free Exercise clause?


Do you think this trend to be something good for America?

Which trend are you talking about? I can show you 200 years of law that says that corporations have religious beliefs. The only trend I see is the attempt to rewrite history by people that have some sort of personal beef against religion. Personally, I think that trend is bad, but I doubt it will destroy America. What will destroy America is the fact that assholes, like you, insist on shoving their religion down other people's throats.

By the way, even the Obama administration has admitted that corporations actually do have religious beliefs. If they didn't he wouldn't have allowed churches to opt out of Obamacare based on those beliefs. I guess that makes you even more wrong that you thought, doesn't it?

That said, it actually doesn't matter if corporations have religious beliefs or not, people do. That is why the government has zero chance of winning the Hobby Lobby case.

Never before have for-profit corporations been afforded religious exemptions.

NEVER.

Is this ever a can of worms

Can you imagine the precedent it sets?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Religious beliefs and devotions are formed in the “minds and hearts of individuals,” so said a recent court ruling.

How far can a fictitious entity that is invisible, intangible, existing only in contemplation of law and formed to create profits for it's shareholders go in exercising it's Freedom of Religion?

All the way, just as if it were a flesh and blood, mind and heart individual?

Let’s assume that they are, they’d still be subject to the same Equal Protection Clause/Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence of private citizens, where although the rights enshrined in the First Amendment are inalienable, they are not absolute, and subject to reasonable regulatory measures and restrictions by government as are other rights.

And in the case of the ACA, the health insurance requirement is reasonable and appropriate, as it in no way ‘violates’ the religious rights of the corporate entity, just as would be the case with a private individual.

Let us assume you have a brain. So far I have seen no evidence of it, but I am willing to use it to make an argument.

Given that the clauses you cited have no application in the lives of private citizens other than to protect them from the government your first paragraph is complete nonsense. We can now move on to your second paragraph.

We aren't talking about the ACA here, we are talking about the mandate on employers to provide birth control to their employees. Under the RFRA the court has to examine the mandate in order to determine if it is a burden on religious freedom. There is absolutely no question that it is. That, however, does not mean that the government loses.

If the government can show that they have a compelling interest in birth control through employers, they can win. The problem with this is that birth control is readily available to women through multiple programs, many of which provide it without charge to the recipient. The government also exempted tens millions of people from the mandate through various exemptions it has already handed out to various corporations. This makes the argument that they have a compelling interest pretty weak.

If they somehow prevail on that argument, they then have to prove that the employer mandate is the least intrusive method for implementing their policy. They are actually required to prove that simply taxing everyone, and then giving birth control to anyone who wants it, is actually less intrusive than requiring people to violate their religious beliefs. Good luck with that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Corporations are people, my friend. That's the line, as we have all heard it. Citizens United basically affirmed it.

Generally, this has been applied to political speech, nonetheless, it provides Freedom of Speech to Corporations -- but the question is: Are Corporations persons that can have a sincerely held religious belief?

In the recent mishmash of that ill-begotten AZ bill SB1062, one aspect was little touched on, mainly this:

See that there? What has been defined as a "Person" was amended to not only include "a religious assembly or institution" but also:

"ANY INDIVIDUAL, ASSOCIATION, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, CHURCH, RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY, OR INSTITUTION, ESTATE, TRUST, FOUNDATION OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY."

SB1062 - 512R - I Ver

The definition there is far broader in scope and applicability in that Corporations, et al, could have discriminated if they held sincerely held religious beliefs.

Which brings us to the recent SCOTUS cases up soon involving Hobby Lobby v Sebelius - and the other entities that are suing to be able to deny specific contraceptive coverage on religious beliefs grounds.

We are at crossroad where not only are for-profit corporate commercial entities and organizations considered to be persons regarding Freedom of Speech, but now the trend is to carve out laws to give these Corporations Freedom of Religion.

How do Corporations, fictitious persons under the law - practice religion? Can they go to Church? Do they partake in sacraments?
Should they be protected fully as a person under the cherished Free Exercise clause?


Do you think this trend to be something good for America?

Which trend are you talking about? I can show you 200 years of law that says that corporations have religious beliefs. The only trend I see is the attempt to rewrite history by people that have some sort of personal beef against religion. Personally, I think that trend is bad, but I doubt it will destroy America. What will destroy America is the fact that assholes, like you, insist on shoving their religion down other people's throats.

By the way, even the Obama administration has admitted that corporations actually do have religious beliefs. If they didn't he wouldn't have allowed churches to opt out of Obamacare based on those beliefs. I guess that makes you even more wrong that you thought, doesn't it?

That said, it actually doesn't matter if corporations have religious beliefs or not, people do. That is why the government has zero chance of winning the Hobby Lobby case.

Never before have for-profit corporations been afforded religious exemptions.

NEVER.

Are you sure about that?

For profit corporations have the right to free speech, freedom of the press, and the right to petition the government. They also have the protections of the rest of the Bill of Rights, which is why the police cannot simply show up at a corporation and walk off with whatever they want. Can you explain to me, rationally, why the only right they do not have is religion?

 

[Mustang]

I have a question:

Has HL posted a sign in front of their stores saying that if you (the person approaching the entrance) are having sex outside of wedlock and/or if you're using birth control, they just plain and simple don't want your business because, you see, they have values. Actually, they're MORE than just values. They're principles. No, they're more than that too. They're religious convictions. So, just take your business elsewhere!

 

[rightwinger]

Religious beliefs and devotions are formed in the “minds and hearts of individuals,” so said a recent court ruling.

How far can a fictitious entity that is invisible, intangible, existing only in contemplation of law and formed to create profits for it's shareholders go in exercising it's Freedom of Religion?

All the way, just as if it were a flesh and blood, mind and heart individual?

Let’s assume that they are, they’d still be subject to the same Equal Protection Clause/Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence of private citizens, where although the rights enshrined in the First Amendment are inalienable, they are not absolute, and subject to reasonable regulatory measures and restrictions by government as are other rights.

And in the case of the ACA, the health insurance requirement is reasonable and appropriate, as it in no way ‘violates’ the religious rights of the corporate entity, just as would be the case with a private individual.

Let us assume you have a brain. So far I have seen no evidence of it, but I am willing to use it to make an argument.

Given that the clauses you cited have no application in the lives of private citizens other than to protect them from the government your first paragraph is complete nonsense. We can now move on to your second paragraph.

We aren't talking about the ACA here, we are talking about the mandate on employers to provide birth control to their employees. Under the RFRA the court has to examine the mandate in order to determine if it is a burden on religious freedom. There is absolutely no question that it is. That, however, does not mean that the government loses.

If the government can show that they have a compelling interest in birth control through employers, they can win. The problem with this is that birth control is readily available to women through multiple programs, many of which provide it without charge to the recipient. The government also exempted tens millions of people from the mandate through various exemptions it has already handed out to various corporations. This makes the argument that they have a compelling interest pretty weak.

If they somehow prevail on that argument, they then have to prove that the employer mandate is the least intrusive method for implementing their policy. They are actually required to prove that simply taxing everyone, and then giving birth control to anyone who wants it, is actually less intrusive than requiring people to violate their religious beliefs. Good luck with that.

First of all. It is the ACA (Obamacare) that provides the mandate to cover birth control

The government has a compelling interest to ensure that low cost birth control is available to its citizens. Unwanted and unplanned children are a burden on society

How does Hobby Lobby demonstrate its compelling interest in denying birth control coverage to employees when it stocks it's shelves with products from China? China has mandatory abortion. Hobby Lobby can enforce morality on its employees but not it's suppliers?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Which trend are you talking about? I can show you 200 years of law that says that corporations have religious beliefs. The only trend I see is the attempt to rewrite history by people that have some sort of personal beef against religion. Personally, I think that trend is bad, but I doubt it will destroy America. What will destroy America is the fact that assholes, like you, insist on shoving their religion down other people's throats.

By the way, even the Obama administration has admitted that corporations actually do have religious beliefs. If they didn't he wouldn't have allowed churches to opt out of Obamacare based on those beliefs. I guess that makes you even more wrong that you thought, doesn't it?

That said, it actually doesn't matter if corporations have religious beliefs or not, people do. That is why the government has zero chance of winning the Hobby Lobby case.

Never before have for-profit corporations been afforded religious exemptions.

NEVER.

Is this ever a can of worms

Can you imagine the precedent it sets?

It certainly does.

Imagine the Supreme Court ruling that the New York Times, as a for profit corporation, is not able to declare that it has freedom of speech and the press. The resulting upheaval would probably destroy the country.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Religious beliefs and devotions are formed in the “minds and hearts of individuals,” so said a recent court ruling.

How far can a fictitious entity that is invisible, intangible, existing only in contemplation of law and formed to create profits for it's shareholders go in exercising it's Freedom of Religion?

All the way, just as if it were a flesh and blood, mind and heart individual?

Let’s assume that they are, they’d still be subject to the same Equal Protection Clause/Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence of private citizens, where although the rights enshrined in the First Amendment are inalienable, they are not absolute, and subject to reasonable regulatory measures and restrictions by government as are other rights.

And in the case of the ACA, the health insurance requirement is reasonable and appropriate, as it in no way ‘violates’ the religious rights of the corporate entity, just as would be the case with a private individual.

Let us assume you have a brain. So far I have seen no evidence of it, but I am willing to use it to make an argument.

Given that the clauses you cited have no application in the lives of private citizens other than to protect them from the government your first paragraph is complete nonsense. We can now move on to your second paragraph.

We aren't talking about the ACA here, we are talking about the mandate on employers to provide birth control to their employees. Under the RFRA the court has to examine the mandate in order to determine if it is a burden on religious freedom. There is absolutely no question that it is. That, however, does not mean that the government loses.

If the government can show that they have a compelling interest in birth control through employers, they can win. The problem with this is that birth control is readily available to women through multiple programs, many of which provide it without charge to the recipient. The government also exempted tens millions of people from the mandate through various exemptions it has already handed out to various corporations. This makes the argument that they have a compelling interest pretty weak.

If they somehow prevail on that argument, they then have to prove that the employer mandate is the least intrusive method for implementing their policy. They are actually required to prove that simply taxing everyone, and then giving birth control to anyone who wants it, is actually less intrusive than requiring people to violate their religious beliefs. Good luck with that.

Indeed and especially given that Hobby Lobby NOW covers 16 of the 20 contraceptive drugs. That isn't good enough for Obama. He expects Hobby Lobby to violate EVERY tenant of their beliefs. EVERY ONE.

Doesn't matter that any woman can go to Planned Parenthood and get ANY abortion pill or device that they want. Doesn't make one hill of bean difference to Obama and his thugs. This is NOT about birth control and anyone with a modicum of sense understands that. This is about GOVERNMENT taking control of anything remotely connected with "religion" -it's about taking control of destroying religious beliefs slowly but surely.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have a question:

Has HL posted a sign in front of their stores saying that if you (the person approaching the entrance) are having sex outside of wedlock and/or if you're using birth control, they just plain and simple don't want your business because, you see, they have values. Actually, they're MORE than just values. They're principles. No, they're more than that too. They're religious convictions. So, just take your business elsewhere!

I have a question.

What makes you think your question is in any way applicable to the discussion?

 

[RandallFlagg]

Never before have for-profit corporations been afforded religious exemptions.

NEVER.

Is this ever a can of worms

Can you imagine the precedent it sets?

It certainly does.

Imagine the Supreme Court ruling that the New York Times, as a for profit corporation, is not able to declare that it has freedom of speech and the press. The resulting upheaval would probably destroy the country.

And again, isn't that what this is all about? Absolutely best response in this entire debate.