paperview
Life is Good
- Jul 27, 2009
- 14,558
- 2,968
- Thread starter
- #81
http://www.usmessageboard.com/8828384-post57.htmlShame on corporate America for not towing the democratic line eh paperview?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/8828384-post57.htmlShame on corporate America for not towing the democratic line eh paperview?
Sotomayor is an idiot. COmpanies could avoid the issue by going out of business. But I dont think anyone believes that is a reasonable compromise.Moe:
- Justices Sotomayor and Kagan shifted to a different line of questioning. Companies objecting to the contraception requirement arent being forced to provide health coverage, they said. Companies could avoid the contraception issue by deciding not to offer health care coverage and choosing to pay the tax penalty instead.
- Justice Sotomayor raised a line of questioning highlighted by a dissenting judge in a lower court. How are courts, she asked, supposed to know whether a corporation holds a particular religious belief? And what happens to the minority members or shareholders of a corporation who may not share the majoritys belief? How much of a corporations business has to be dedicated to religion?
Mr. Clement said those issues would go to questions about whether a corporation was being sincere in asserting religious claims.
Justice Sotomayor responded that the court has always resisted engaging in the tricky proposition of trying to measure the depth and sincerity of someones religious beliefs.
I think when I think about it corporations can have religious beliefs.
While I think the idea that the are fighting against birth control and what not is stupid. They have that right. I also disagree with the mandate of aca, but at the same time these things in healthcare need to be covered period.
I'd say everything is covered and if hobby lobby doesn't like it they can not hand out healthcare. The choice is theirs.
- "Solicitor General Verrilli, representing the Obama administration, began his argument by invoking a 1944 opinion by the revered Justice Robert Jackson, who wrote that the limits [on religious exercise] begin to operate whenever activities begin to affect or collide with liberties of others or of the public.
- Mr. Verrilli meant that allowing the corporate plaintiffs to refuse to provide the contraceptive coverage would harm the thousands of their employees whom Congress decided were entitled to the benefit. But Chief Justice Roberts rebutted Mr. Verrilli at once, saying that Congress itself had rejected Justice Jacksons view when it passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, allowing religious exceptions to general laws in some circumstances.
I think when I think about it corporations can have religious beliefs.
While I think the idea that the are fighting against birth control and what not is stupid. They have that right. I also disagree with the mandate of aca, but at the same time these things in healthcare need to be covered period.
I'd say everything is covered and if hobby lobby doesn't like it they can not hand out healthcare. The choice is theirs.
It's not a choice. They want to provide health coverage. But they dont want to provide the health coverage that is mandated. Their only choice is to provide coverage that offends them or not provide any and pay a penalty. That isn't freedom. That isnt a reasonable compromise.
Ignore this:
- "Solicitor General Verrilli, representing the Obama administration, began his argument by invoking a 1944 opinion by the revered Justice Robert Jackson, who wrote that the limits [on religious exercise] begin to operate whenever activities begin to affect or collide with liberties of others or of the public.
- Mr. Verrilli meant that allowing the corporate plaintiffs to refuse to provide the contraceptive coverage would harm the thousands of their employees whom Congress decided were entitled to the benefit. But Chief Justice Roberts rebutted Mr. Verrilli at once, saying that Congress itself had rejected Justice Jacksons view when it passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, allowing religious exceptions to general laws in some circumstances.
There's that "religious exemption" thing I mentioned that you ignored. Good stuff.
I think when I think about it corporations can have religious beliefs.
While I think the idea that the are fighting against birth control and what not is stupid. They have that right. I also disagree with the mandate of aca, but at the same time these things in healthcare need to be covered period.
I'd say everything is covered and if hobby lobby doesn't like it they can not hand out healthcare. The choice is theirs.
It's not a choice. They want to provide health coverage. But they dont want to provide the health coverage that is mandated. Their only choice is to provide coverage that offends them or not provide any and pay a penalty. That isn't freedom. That isnt a reasonable compromise.
Tough shit. I don't want to have to have higher costs because people like to smoke and drink. But that's not going to happen.
Hobby lobbies choice is still their in the end.
I will say I am not completely settled on the issue.
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?
BEcause it violates the ethical, moral and religious foundations of the org.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?
Let's boil this down to something simple enough for even you to understand: Should a hospital be forced to perform abortions?
Abortions are legal. If someone's insurance pays for it, why shouldn't the hospital, a corporation, be forced to perform one?
Progressives have their own religion. It's called "science".I'd start a new religion for progressives, but I don't think it could compete with 'governmentism'
Ah well....
Why the condescension?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?
Let's boil this down to something simple enough for even you to understand: Should a hospital be forced to perform abortions?
Abortions are legal. If someone's insurance pays for it, why shouldn't the hospital, a corporation, be forced to perform one?