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

[Kosh]

Maybe this will help:

A corporation is a fictitious person, literally.
No heart, no mind, no flesh, no blood, a legal fiction for legal purposes.

Persona ficta -- Legal personality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nothing will help the far left programmed masses understand reality, they prefer the matrix.

 

[paperview]

I must say, we've come a long way from conservatives puffed out with Creeping Sharia law in America...


to Yay! Sharia!!!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

When you can execute a Corporation it can call for a Priest, not before then.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

Citizens United concerned the role of government with regard to its efforts to regulate political speech, where the nature of the corporate entity was not the Court’s focus; rather, the focus was on the appropriateness of First Amendment regulatory policy.

And as with all other matters concerning the restricting of a First Amendment right, the Court reviewed the merits of the government’s desire to indeed restrict political speech – whether corporate or individual – and found it lacking, and correctly so.

Of course, corporate entities need to realize that just as they might perceive a benefit from First Amendment jurisprudence, so too might they be subject to a ‘disadvantage,’ where a regulatory measure such as the ACA is Constitutional, and might indeed have the inadvertent and indirect effect of manifesting a perceived burden on religious expression, where being required to afford all employees comprehensive health coverage is one such example.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I must say, we've come a long way from conservatives puffed out with Creeping Sharia law in America...


to Yay! Sharia!!!

Conservatives of course must take care to not lapse into their normal routine of inconsistent hypocrisy, where on the one hand they claim that corporations are persons when there is a perceived benefit (Citizens United), and on the other hand claim that corporations are not persons when the case law doesn’t work to their advantage (Employment Division v. Smith (1990)).

 

[OKTexas]

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?

For a privately held corporation, YEP!

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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?

Are they established on it's foundation based upon that individual's beliefs? The Salvation Army or even the Boy Scouts of America was Founded upon Christian ideals and morals they felt was important enough to benefit the needs of the nation. To say their need to hold onto their interests or chosen established values to follow in the form of business is wrong, is to suggest the NAACP is somehow racist for pursuing after "their" chosen established interest that "they" feel best serves after the needs of this country. A business established by an owner who wishes to follow after religious values, has every right to do so as everyone else who markets after a particular group or for the benefit of others.

 

[whitehall]

What's so evil about corporations? Churches often incorporate and a private citizen can obtain an LLC.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

I would equate an individual who places the needs of another over their OWN personal values would not be interfering into one's own freedoms and rights, it's the needs and rights of another that's more important here. Just as a law which places the needs and value of another (that of a newborn) over their own personal freedom, values, and rights. When you break it all down, what this is this simply really all about are the rights of another superseding (taking precedence) over your own personal rights and beliefs, nothing more ..... and this is defiantly not about the concerns of anyone's personal freedoms and choices being taken from them. How someone chooses to control their own business or body should not be any more significant.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

What's so evil about corporations? Churches often incorporate and a private citizen can obtain an LLC.

Nothing is evil, they are Amoral. For-Profit ones also do something called Externalizing Costs. We pay for that and it's not good. Look it up.

And when Adam Smith was alive corporations had been banned. He believed that they should be as well. Now why would that be? It involved how they made Moral and Financially Risky Decisions.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.

I believe there is a big difference between an individual establishing a business based on religious ethic (such as not choosing to obtain an alcohol license, or compromise their beliefs to allow for contraception), from someone who simply decides to deny services a business has advertised and chosen to provide for their customers. Prospective employees, when looking for an employer, base their employment decisions on various criteria they find valuable to them (vacation time, sick days, holiday pay, retirement plans, and the cost associated with various health care packages). Based on that predetermined criteria, they make the decision of who they would much rather work for, according to their personal and family needs they have to meet. Is government to also make it mandatory for all businesses to carry a vacation package and personal time off? What about sick time? Where in our Constitution does it clearly state that government has the absolute right to dictate to and for the business owner, how they are to run their private business?

 

[FJO]

Considering that the Catholic church is widely considered to be the largest corporation on Earth, it isn't too far fetched to think that a corporation can become a religion. Corporatism is basically a religion on Wall Street now.

Maybe I'll start a new religion and call it Corporatology- the belief that corporations are successful because they are ran by supreme beings from outer space. Corporatology states that taxation and regulations of any kind are a threat to religious freedom, and the corporate gods who pay monthly tithes to my church can cite the 1st Amendment to escape the crushing taxes and EPA burdens imposed on them by an unworthy society.

Congratulations, Your Holiness, the Pope of the Church of Corporatology!

You can proudly wear a tin foil hat as your miter.

 

[The Rabbi]

Corporations are nothing more than aggregations of people. As such they do not have fewer rights than the people who form them.
It is funny how libs whine about PACs and corporate interests but when the vehicle comes to even up the score--citizens coming together to pool resources--they dont want it.
The main issue for them is that most of these orgs are conservative. If they were liberal the libs wouldnt have any problems.

 

[paperview]

Today the arguments will be heard re: Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, and the implications of how it is decided are going to very significant.

Given the make up of the Court, it's going to be an eyeball stretcher, either way.

I like we can hear oral arguments now (won't it be a fine day when they allow cameras in SCOTUS?) (ha!)

-- One thing the Justices did just recently was issue an order expanding the time allotted for oral argument in the case from 60 minutes to 90 minutes.

Clear indication of its importance.

Big day today.

 

[paperview]

There were some people who starting lining up to be one of the lucky few to be in the Court today.

They started lining up outside on Friday. Brrrrr.

 

[dblack]

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?

Do families have religious beliefs? Organizations? Clubs?

 

[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?

Do families have religious beliefs? Organizations? Clubs?

That isn't the question being asked today before the Supreme Court.

It is Are Corporations 'persons' that can have a sincerely held religious belief?

 

[Old Rocks]

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?

Why, yes, they do. They all bow to the god Mammon.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

Q. Do Corporations have Religious Beliefs?

A. [Romney beliefs Corporations are people] Some people are moral, others immoral and still others amoral.

Let's consider Enron, can anyone deny it was conceived and dedicated to fucking over its employees and entire states? Thus it was immoral by the standards of all but the callous conservatives who too are immoral, who put profit over people.

Next, let's consider Exxon Mobil, clearly a mega company which puts profit over people and our environment; then, look at the behavior of Koch Industries and the two (at least) members of the Supreme Court who cozy up to them; the senators and members of the H. of Rep. who deny global warming and fail to look into the future and support green and renewable sources of energy to protect big oil, big coal and the Keystone Pipeline.

 

[paperview]

Some good links from SCOTUSblog:

Today the Court will hear oral arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, the challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate. Lyle Denniston previewed the oral argument for this blog; other coverage comes from Nina Totenberg of NPR, as well as from Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal, who discusses the “ideological role reversal” in the case, Adam Liptak of The New York Times, who focuses on the potentially broader effects of the Court’s decision, and Chantal Valery of Agence France-Presse. And at Talking Points Memo, Sahil Kapur provides an overview of the case and looks at the role in the case of Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the 1990 decision that prompted Congress to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Commentary on the case comes from Margaux J. Hall at Slate, Matt Bowman at the National Review Online, and Tom Donnelly in The New Republic.

Tuesday round-up : SCOTUSblog