Supreme Court Suprise

[fskimospy]

Choice. Preference. Personal beliefs. You have yet to acknowledge that there are numerous corporations where founders and CEOs establish religious convictions as part of their corporate culture. That is their choice. I am sure they appreciate your concern as well.

Stop dodging the question. Why is it right to separate them financially and not religiously?

 

[ivwshane]

Edgy

And apparently I’m right on the money.

 

[Starbuck1975]

And apparently I’m right on the money.

Keep telling yourself that

 

[Starbuck1975]

Stop dodging the question. Why is it right to separate them financially and not religiously?

I answered your question. You have yet to answer mine in response.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I answered your question. You have yet to answer mine in response.

as an observer, you didn’t answer other than saying something about his word salad.

 

[fskimospy]

as an observer, you didn’t answer other than saying something about his word salad.

Right? I’m not sure what to say when he just plainly lies about what he did.

 

[woolfe9998]

Right? I’m not sure what to say when he just plainly lies about what he did.

He kind of made an argument in post #87. It just isn't a very good one.

You deny then that corporations, businesses and companies can also assert their values and beliefs, often a reflection of its CEO, board of directors or leadership? Have there not been employee walkout in recent years because of clashes between company and employee or societal values? Have there not been high profile examples recently of CEOs stepping down for not projecting or adhering to corporate “values”. A corporation can take a moral, ethical or religious position despite the legal rationalization for its existence.

Because the fact that owners of a corporation can assert moral, ethical or religious positions on behalf of a company if they so choose is not an argument for why they should be legally treated as the same for certain purposes but not others. They can stuff their own money into the company too, but it is still treated as financially a separate company under the law.

 

[Starbuck1975]

as an observer, you didn’t answer other than saying something about his word salad.

See post #87. I offered Chik-fil-A as a notable example that refutes whatever argument @fskimospy thinks he is making, which is why he keeps dismissing it.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Because the fact that owners of a corporation can assert moral, ethical or religious positions on behalf of a company if they so choose is not an argument for why they should be legally treated as the same for certain purposes but not others. They can stuff their own money into the company too, but it is still treated as financially a separate company under the law.

That is the point I made. Why is that a problem? Why does it matter what a Founder or CEO chooses to do with their company?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

See post #87

having trouble understanding post 87, want to simplify it so we all can understand

 

[Starbuck1975]

having trouble understanding post 87, want to simplify it so we all can understand

It’s in plain english. Which part do you not understand?

 

[fskimospy]

That is the point I made. Why is that a problem? Why does it matter what a Founder or CEO chooses to do with their company?

Because the reason they made that company was to separate it from themselves financially and legally.

So yet again: why is it right that a company should be financially and legally separate from its owner but not religiously?

You can just say ‘it’s not’, by the way.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

It’s in plain english. Which part do you not understand?

Just trying to help you out, if you don’t want help that’s cool.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Because the reason they made that company was to separate it from themselves financially and legally.

So yet again: why is it right that a company should be financially and legally separate from its owner but not religiously?

You can just say ‘it’s not’, by the way.

Again, why is that an issue relative to my original post? It makes perfect sense that someone would want to legally shield their assets from liability via a corporation but still want said corporation to reflect their values. Right or wrong doesn’t even enter into the equation.

 

[Paratus]

Again, why is that an issue relative to my original post? It makes perfect sense that someone would want to legally shield their assets from liability via a corporation but still want said corporation to reflect their values. Right or wrong doesn’t even enter into the equation.

Yes they would want that. But why would we as a society want to allow them too?

 

[SMOGZINN]

It’s in plain english. Which part do you not understand?

You keep saying that companies heads are able to impart religious standards on a cooperate culture. No one is disputing that. They are able to. We are asking why they should be given legal protections for that while at the same time taking advantage of the legal protections to shield them from the consequences of their religious culture?

Can we agree that morality without taking responsibility for ones actions is empty? The current ruling is that a company can hold a moral stance but does not have to accept the responsibility that comes along with the moral choices. That would mean that the claims of religious culture is empty, and not a earnestly held religious belief. Why should we allow such a transparent abuse of our system? It insults everyone that really does hold their religious beliefs in earnest.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

The bigger question is ... should they be able to impose those beliefs on employees particularly in the way of denying benefits?

 

[ivwshane]

The bigger question is ... should they be able to impose those beliefs on employees particularly in the way of denying benefits?

Yes...because reasons. At least that’s the reasoning Starbuck is using. Forget about trying to get a reason why it should be like that though, he’s apparently not capable of providing that reasoning.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You keep saying that companies heads are able to impart religious standards on a cooperate culture. No one is disputing that. They are able to. We are asking why they should be given legal protections for that while at the same time taking advantage of the legal protections to shield them from the consequences of their religious culture?

Can we agree that morality without taking responsibility for ones actions is empty? The current ruling is that a company can hold a moral stance but does not have to accept the responsibility that comes along with the moral choices. That would mean that the claims of religious culture is empty, and not a earnestly held religious belief. Why should we allow such a transparent abuse of our system? It insults everyone that really does hold their religious beliefs in earnest.

In a free market economy, consumers reward companies relative to their values. See Nike and Chik-fil-A.

The problem is that our society is so divergent and tribal is that there is enough positive market response to reward divergent positions.

I believe corporations are held accountable in instances when religious convictions trample on individual civil rights. It is a balance, and only seems to be an issue for the usual hot button topics.

Where it not for the first Amendment, this wouldn’t be a discussion.

 

[kage69]

In a nutshell, most religilous feel entitled to double standards if it comes to matters of money or pride. There are some exceptions, usually Red Letter Dems in my experience though.

It's why Hobby Lobby can rage against having to pay for female employee healthcare because of their poor, poor feels. I think if you can stomach the indignity of making large sums of money on investments in companies that produce birth control pills, as that family has, you can also stomach paying for industry standard healthcare for female employees.

Your religion does not make you special, noble or entitled. Sorry not sorry evangelical nutbags.

 

[ivwshane]

The founding fathers set up two pillars of our democracy; businesses are people and free market dictates the law of the land!

 

[Starbuck1975]

The bigger question is ... should they be able to impose those beliefs on employees particularly in the way of denying benefits?

A company is free to determine what benefits they want to provide relative to attracting and retaining talent and also aligned with their Constitutionally protected rights. No company should have to provide every conceivable benefit. The easiest solution would be for the government to provide these benefits, and let companies differentiate by enhancing on those benefits if they so choose.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Yes...because reasons. At least that’s the reasoning Starbuck is using. Forget about trying to get a reason why it should be like that though, he’s apparently not capable of providing that reasoning.

I provided my reasoning

 

[SMOGZINN]

In a free market economy, consumers reward companies relative to their values. See Nike and Chik-fil-A.

No they don't. See Walmart and De Beers Group. People for the most part do not know or care about a companies values unless it directly impacts them.

The problem is that our society is so divergent and tribal is that there is enough positive market response to reward divergent positions.

The problem is that this idea presupposes that both the economic and information exchange is nearly perfect and symmetrical. It is not even close.
You want that theory to be true then remove all the protections the government gives corporations. Let the people that run corporations be directly responcible for the actions of those corporations, both financially and legally. Stop handing over huge chunks of public money when they screw up, even if those are loans that they then 'pay off' it is the government choosing winners and losers.
Only then it will be more or less symmetrical, and your theories would hold at least a little water.

 

[ivwshane]

I provided my reasoning

You finally did but then you immediately invalidated your reasoning.

You- the free market will take care of it..but the free market also allows any behavior by a company with little to no consequences. In both of your examples the companies gave token responses.