5-4 Decision: Closely Held For-Profit Corporations Have Religious Freedom

[Fanatical Meat]

Where in the constitution is the "unalienable right" to "free" contraception granted



And you were paying for it already. Or do you think that corporations were giving you free contraception out of the goodness of their hearts?

The only difference is that now liberals aren't able to hide the fact they are making you subsidize birth control for women.

Careful on the constitution, it doesn't say anything about diddling young boys either and we all know that's wrong and cannot be tolerated.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Religions are just glorified opinions. This is precedent that says that a person's opinions can exempt them from a law. What if my personal belief is that circumcision isn't necessary. Can I refuse to provide insurance to my employees that covers circumcision? Mandating that I provide insurance with coverage for circumcisions would impose the exact same burden on me as providing coverage for contraception imposed on Hobby Lobby. The same reasoning that allows HobbyLobby to opt out, I should be able to refuse based upon my own personal beliefs, religious or not. Not only is HobbyLobby's religion an opinion, their view that IUDs cause abortions is also nothing but opinion.

 

[crashtech]

Seems if some companies are getting exemptions that allow them to restrict coverage that will still be mandated for other companies, the exempted ones should have to reimburse employees who would have otherwise availed themselves of said coverage. This maintains fairness and relieves the company from being directly responsible for providing something they find morally objectionable.

 

[nehalem256]

Seems if some companies are getting exemptions that allow them to restrict coverage that will still be mandated for other companies, the exempted ones should have to reimburse employees who would have otherwise availed themselves of said coverage. This maintains fairness and relieves the company from being directly responsible for providing something they find morally objectionable.

So should 70 year old men be able to get rebates for not using the maternity coverage they are forced to buy?

 

[Texashiker]

<snip>

Otherwise we're currently witnessing extremely powerful corporate personhood rights trumping an individual's unalienable rights in the workplace EVERY SINGLE TIME. And this idea will be expanded by (the worst) corporations with every passing year and opportunity. There's absolutely nothing stopping them from abusing their rights to corporate personhood and money as speech.

Where do we draw the line on corporate/business rights?

How can we say a company deserves protection under the law, but does not deserve religious rights?

Should a company be able to own property, but not be allowed to donate to a elected official?

What about freedom of speech? Should a company such as the new york times have freedom of speech?

If a company can be stripped of religious rights, what about freedom of speech?

 

[bradley]

We the corporation, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Corporation of the United States of America???

It's going to take decades for the average citizen to realize the concept behind corporate personhood (and money as speech) as being bad. It allows corporations and lobbyists ultimate power to usurp individual rights. We need to start now to increase awareness as time's running low.

I find the below argument to be better and more cohesive than my own...

http://movetoamendpdx.org/Talking_Points

The Supreme Court's attribution of constitutional rights to corporations is unsupported by the U.S. Constitution or the writing of the Constitution's authors. The invention of corporate personhood was an act of raw judicial activism that undermines our Constitution's promise of a republican form of government.

While our Constitution's authors were alive, corporations were completely subordinate to democracy. They could not own stock, engage in activities other than those essential to their business, nor could they make any political or charitable contributions. Corporate lobbying also was prohibited. Maybe they were onto something?

No human being's First Amendment rights will be infringed by preventing corporations from engaging in electoral advocacy. Though we dissent from the Supreme Court's view that spending money to influence election outcomes is equivalent to speech, every corporate executive remains free to spend unlimited amounts of his/her own money to advocate for or against a political candidate or party (only direct investments to a candidate's campaign fund are limited by law).

Corporations are artificial creations of governments (in the U.S., through the Secretary of State's office in a particular state). No group can decide to give themselves limited liability, immunity from prosecution for corporate crimes, or other privileges. Only governments bestow such privilege. As government creations, corporations should be subject to democratic control, not enabled to control democracy.

The many special powers and privileges the government grants corporations (e.g. limited liability, perpetual lifespan, etc.), make limiting their political power essential.

Corporate personhood allows giant corporations to undermine free enterprise by extracting political favors that distort market competition. This harms the vast majority of businesses seeking to prosper by providing needed goods and services, rather than through legal bribery. Two of the three broad-based national business organizations filing briefs in the Citizens United case argued against expanding corporate “political speech.”

 

[crashtech]

So should 70 year old men be able to get rebates for not using the maternity coverage they are forced to buy?

Is that really a relevant analogy? Seems what's at stake here is a specific exemption to a specific company, what you mention is basically a function of insurance, where all costs of all procedures, regardless of cost or sex-specificity are spread evenly in the form of a premium.

I'd think that if some people are receiving less coverage, their premium should reflect that.

 

[alzan]

Where do we draw the line on corporate/business rights?

How can we say a company deserves protection under the law, but does not deserve religious rights?

Should a company be able to own property, but not be allowed to donate to a elected official?

What about freedom of speech? Should a company such as the new york times have freedom of speech?

If a company can be stripped of religious rights, what about freedom of speech?

All of your questions are best answered by the fact that the legal entity (not person(s)) CHF-PC is not a sentient being; they do not have religious beliefs.

 

[thraashman]

I'm really getting tired of this conservative push to let corporations have more rights than individuals.

 

[nehalem256]

Is that really a relevant analogy? Seems what's at stake here is a specific exemption to a specific company, what you mention is basically a function of insurance, where all costs of all procedures, regardless of cost or sex-specificity are spread evenly in the form of a premium.

I'd think that if some people are receiving less coverage, their premium should reflect that.

Not really. Its a direct function of Obamacare trying to force other people to pay for women's reproductive choices.

If I buy auto insurance I don't have to get insurance for my non-existent boat as well.

 

[crashtech]

I'm really getting tired of this conservative push to let corporations have more rights than individuals.

I think it should be obvious that this is not how they view it, though you may feel that they do, since this is the perceived outcome.

Problem is, no one is really interested in fairness, only shoving ideologies down each other's throats. Both sides are guilty of that.

 

[crashtech]

Not really. Its a direct function of Obamacare trying to force other people to pay for women's reproductive choices.

If I buy auto insurance I don't have to get insurance for my non-existent boat as well.

I get where you are coming from, but there should be a way to have an equitable outcome, something which nobody really seems to be interested in.

And I think your analogy is still flawed, your insurance premium is used to pay for everyone's accidents, and some of them might be boat accidents.

 

[ivwshane]

While I completely disagree with the decision I agree with the reasoning behind it.

The case had a couple of components to it:
Does the state have a compelling reason to mandate the coverage of birth control? The court said yes.

Does the state provide the least burdensome way to acheive the above? No, and it came to that conclusion because the ACA currently provides a way for religious non profits to provide BC and that is to exempt them from paying for it and have that particular coverage paid for by the state. The court found no reason why the state couldn't do that for religious closely held for profit corporations.

All this ruling does is shift the burden of costs onto tax payers. Of course this ruling is so narrow as to what businesses would qualify that I'm not sure, really, what impact will this have.

In general though, it's getting tiring watching very profitable businesses having their employees pay subsidized by the state, aka the people. American citizens are good enough to hire, good enough to sell too, but not good enough to invest in (luckily, I don't believe this is the thinking of the majority of businesses).

 

[theeedude]

There are two sides to the mandate. First is that it requires employees to pay a penalty if they don't cover certain services at at least 60%. SCOTUS just said Hobby Lobby can't be accessed this penalty. But the flip side is that if employee doesn't have employer provided insurance that covers those services at 60%, they become eligible for Obamacare exchange subsidy.
Do Hobby Lobby employees become eligible for subsidy on exchanges because their employer plan no longer pays for contraception coverage?
Ironically, this may end up actually expanding Obamacare by making more people subsidy eligible.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Problem is, no one is really interested in fairness, only shoving ideologies down each other's throats. Both sides are guilty of that.

This sums up US politics for the last 20 plus years. Both sides don't care how many Americans they hurt in the process of pushing their ideologies.

 

[realibrad]

Not really. Its a direct function of Obamacare trying to force other people to pay for women's reproductive choices.

If I buy auto insurance I don't have to get insurance for my non-existent boat as well.

No, but you do jump into a pool of shared risks. If you never end up using your auto insurance, then explicitly you paid for those who did get into an accident.
Its the very basis of of insurance through a collective.

I don't like Obamacare, but your point is not the reason. Obamacare is supposed to reduce costs by forgoing short term for long term. A woman who does not get pregnant is far more productive.

 

[theeedude]

Obamacare mandates preventative care coverage. Contraception is part of that.
It covers men's preventative care too.

 

[TheSiege]

Isnt the reason people set up corporations is to limit themselves from liability, in essence, instead of making a business an extension of themself, they are making a completely separate entity? So shouldn't their personal belief really have no say in a government mandated policy?

 

[theeedude]

Isnt the reason people set up corporations is to limit themselves from liability, in essence, instead of making a business an extension of themself, they are making a completely separate entity? So shouldn't their personal belief really have no say in a government mandated policy?

Not in GOP land. There, corporations have all the rights of a person, but none of the responsibilities.

 

[Texashiker]

All of your questions are best answered by the fact that the legal entity (not person(s)) CHF-PC is not a sentient being; they do not have religious beliefs.

Then neither can a company own property, entitled to due process, entitled to protection under the law, or have a political opinion.

 

[theeedude]

How about we apply the "corporations are people, my friend" logic, and require them to pay US taxes on foreign income, like every US person is required to do.

 

[Brainonska511]

Then neither can a company own property, entitled to due process, entitled to protection under the law, or have a political opinion.

We can set the rules about corporations however we want. They are a legal constructs that separate the original owner from the company. Being able to have some of the rights you mention is important for how a corporation can function. However, religion is an inherently human quality and I fail to see how a corporation can have a religion. Do you go to church with your corporation? Is your corporation Muslim or Jewish? What other acts of discrimination will corporations push in the name of sincerely held beliefs?

 

[TerryMathews]

Isnt the reason people set up corporations is to limit themselves from liability, in essence, instead of making a business an extension of themself, they are making a completely separate entity? So shouldn't their personal belief really have no say in a government mandated policy?

"Closely held corporations" are the ones most likely to have the veil pierced.

 

[Texashiker]

However, religion is an inherently human quality and I fail to see how a corporation can have a religion. Do you go to church with your corporation? Is your corporation Muslim or Jewish? What other acts of discrimination will corporations push in the name of sincerely held beliefs?

Just so you know, I fully agree with you. The idea of a business having a religion is silly.

But then again, pushing for companies to have a political opinion and being able to donate money to elections is what started all this.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by TheSiege
Isnt the reason people set up corporations is to limit themselves from liability, in essence, instead of making a business an extension of themself, they are making a completely separate entity? So shouldn't their personal belief really have no say in a government mandated policy?

Not in GOP land. There, corporations have all the rights of a person, but none of the responsibilities.

Well the GOP are apparently right.

So I thereby declare the religion of McOwen, therefore exempt from Obamacare as well.