Merged Hobby lobby and the slippery slope/SCOTUS decision

[BobTheCoward]

The worst of it is that it is just a continuation of the "corporations are people" ruling in Citizens United. If it weren't for that obviously completely and unambiguously wrong ruling, then this one wouldn't have had a chance.

Now we just need to figure out some way to put corporations in jail when fines aren't enough. You can't have all the perks of being a "person" while ignoring the penalties. Perhaps a situation where the corporation is run directly by the Federal Government for a period of time under strict non-profit based rules and no shares can be bought or sold or bonuses paid? We'd have to figure out a way to make sure that the "criminal record" hurts them as well, of course.

The principles of citizens united should be the standard of a fair society.

 

[Neally]

The principles of citizens united should be the standard of a fair society.

Exactly. From day one people with more money have had the ability to get their speech out further and wider than those with less money. Their rights should not be suppressed simply because someone thinks it unfair. No one elses rights are suppressed in the ruling.

Likewise, the rights of an employer and their religious beliefs should not be suppressed because of someone elses demand that the employer pay for something they find religiously offensive. No one elses rights are suppressed in the ruling. Employees are still free to buy and use contraceptives as they wish.

 

[ravdin]

Congress has had the power all along to provide exemptions for birth control- either by placing a provision in the ACA or by amending the Religious Freedom Restoration Act^WP. Since both would be politically nonviable, it was punted to SCOTUS instead. I'd say it's the court's job to interpret the law. If you don't like the law, take it up with the lawmakers.

 

[LTC8K6]

I attempted to find the Mark Arnold quote by itself, but I could not.

 

[sunmaster14]

The worst of it is that it is just a continuation of the "corporations are people" ruling in Citizens United. If it weren't for that obviously completely and unambiguously wrong ruling, then this one wouldn't have had a chance.

Now we just need to figure out some way to put corporations in jail when fines aren't enough. You can't have all the perks of being a "person" while ignoring the penalties. Perhaps a situation where the corporation is run directly by the Federal Government for a period of time under strict non-profit based rules and no shares can be bought or sold or bonuses paid? We'd have to figure out a way to make sure that the "criminal record" hurts them as well, of course.

You seem to not understand that corporations can be convicted of felonies. Consider Arthur Andersen, which was completely destroyed. Is the death penalty really not good enough for you? Do you want the metaphorical corpse to be dug up and thrown in some kind of metaphorical jail as well?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

The principles of citizens united should be the standard of a fair society.

Exactly. From day one people with more money have had the ability to get their speech out further and wider than those with less money. Their rights should not be suppressed simply because someone thinks it unfair. No one elses rights are suppressed in the ruling.

I certainly hope you're not that naive.

A lot of money invested by some in the political process is not to "get their speech out," it's to purchase influence.

 

[Resume]

Jesus Christ, go to lunch and when I come back it's 1952. Which means lunch should've been a martini and cost me 60 cents. If we're gonna go backwards let's really go backwards.

 

[Neally]

I certainly hope you're not that naive.
A lot of money invested by some in the political process is not to "get their speech out," it's to purchase influence.

Of course many campaign contributors want the politician to advance their agenda, but everyone that contributes to a campaign wants to advance a particular agenda or at least block the agenda of the opponent. It still falls into the domain of free speech which the court correctly ruled should not be infringed it that case.

 

[jj]

So, this clears the way for "closely held corporations" to engage in any kind of religious discrimination whatsoever, quite obviously, and also says that closely held corporations are completely exempt in every fashion from Romneycare, all they have to do is become Christian Scientist, and push everyone to exchanges without compensation.

That's what this ruling clearly means.

 

[jj]

You seem to not understand that corporations can be convicted of felonies. Consider Arthur Andersen, which was completely destroyed. Is the death penalty really not good enough for you? Do you want the metaphorical corpse to be dug up and thrown in some kind of metaphorical jail as well?

Stuff and nonsense, if a corporation pulled the stunts banks pulled, they would be jailed, not merely fined an overall meaningless amount.

Corporations can not be jailed, and so they are not persons. Arthur Anderson is simply a ridiculous example, they lost certifications to function.

You can't do that for a corporation that does not have to have some kind of certification that is legally required.

 

[ehcks]

all they have to do is become Christian Scientist, and push everyone to exchanges without compensation.

That's actually not a bad thing, as long as their pay isn't left low without compensation for the loss of health insurance.

Hobby Lobby would have been fine had they simply removed health insurance as a benefit.

ETA: Well, I mean... they'd be fined for not offering it because of how many employees they have, which is a part of the ACA I disagree with.

 

[Kaepora Gaebora]

I sorta understand both sides arguments, but I disagree whole-heartedly with forcing religious beliefs on a person's healthcare, especially when you're not directly giving the healthcare to the employee.

I'm upset with the ruling.

 

[Neally]

I sorta understand both sides arguments, but I disagree whole-heartedly with forcing religious beliefs on a person's healthcare, especially when you're not directly giving the healthcare to the employee.

I'm upset with the ruling.

Without this ruling, the owner of Hobby Lobby would be forced to pay for something they find religiously objectionable.

With this ruling, the owners religious freedom has be upheld. Employees religious freedom is not impinged and they can still get whatever contraceptives they want.

Which part of the above upsets you?

 

[Ziggurat]

Arthur Anderson is simply a ridiculous example, they lost certifications to function.

You can't do that for a corporation that does not have to have some kind of certification that is legally required.

Wrong. You can do that to any corporation. Every corporation needs a corporate charter, and all of them are revokable. It may be a higher legal hurdle to get the corporate charter revoked than to get some trade-specific license revoked, but it's a possibility for every corporation, no matter what business they're in.

 

[nelsondogg]

So, this clears the way for "closely held corporations" to engage in any kind of religious discrimination whatsoever, quite obviously, and also says that closely held corporations are completely exempt in every fashion from Romneycare, all they have to do is become Christian Scientist, and push everyone to exchanges without compensation.

That's what this ruling clearly means.

Except that it doesn't because... well, I'm not sure why other than Alito says so. ..

This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.

How the **** they can justify this, I have no idea. They basically said, if you are a Jehova's Witness, hippy new age or Christian Scientist business owner, too bad, never mind, this only applies to idiotic Catholic beliefs.

 

[sunmaster14]

Stuff and nonsense, if a corporation (sic - I assume you mean "person") pulled the stunts banks pulled, they would be jailed, not merely fined an overall meaningless amount.

If prosecutors wanted to indict Bank of America for felonies, they could have done so. Just as they could have indicted many bank or broker executives (e.g. Jon Corzine, to pick one at random) if they had the evidence and the desire. That they chose not to doesn't mean it's because corporations are somehow immune from prosecution.

Corporations can not be jailed, and so they are not persons. Arthur Anderson is simply a ridiculous example, they lost certifications to function.

You can't do that for a corporation that does not have to have some kind of certification that is legally required.

That's an interesting criterion for personhood you've come up with. A necessary condition for being a person is that you can be jailed? Is that the new humanism?

All corporations need state approval (e.g. a license) to do business. If it is suspended, or not granted in the first place, then the corporation cannot function. It would be the equivalent of jail in the first instance, and perhaps an abortion in the second. A court can completely dissolve a corporation as well, which I suppose is the equivalent of the death penalty.

 

[Ziggurat]

So, this clears the way for "closely held corporations" to engage in any kind of religious discrimination whatsoever

Nope. Go read the RFRA. It doesn't say what you seem to think it says. It never did.

 

[BobTheCoward]

How the **** they can justify this, I have no idea. They basically said, if you are a Jehova's Witness, hippy new age or Christian Scientist business owner, too bad, never mind, this only applies to idiotic Catholic beliefs.

My guess would be that there was one or two holdouts that were not willing to go beyond this case and this was the outcome with 5 votes. There may have been 3 votes for applying it to those.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I attempted to find the Mark Arnold quote by itself, but I could not.

All links appear to cite the Powerline page.

 

[The_Animus]

This ruling is bad because it is a blatant example of religious privilege.

The court essentially decided that on a single issue, largely brought up by a single religion christianity, private corporations get to be exempt from the law on religious moral grounds.

All other christian moral beliefs, all the other religions moral beliefs, all secular moral beliefs don't matter at all.

Your christian belief says that blood transfusions are wrong? Too bad, no exemption.

Your muslim belief says women have to wear specific clothes to cover them up? Too bad, no exemption.

Your secular belief says war is wrong and stupid and you don't think your taxes should fund the military or wars? Too bad, no exemption.

There is no line here. No rhyme or reason why there is an exemption for one groups belief on one issue and not anyone else.

Long live Christian Privilege.