Merged Hobby lobby and the slippery slope/SCOTUS decision

[Chaos]

That's my other question about this ruling. The main purpose of an LLC and its other iterations is to protect and shield the individual owners from liability for the actions of the corporation. It is an independent entity. By extension if it is sued or it incurs fines or if it owes debts etc, the stakeholders can't be held as individual responsible parties for payment because the corporation owes and not the owners personally.

In this case, the Greens successfully argued that no - in fact we and our corporation are one. There is no separation. Doesn't that kinda throw one of the core purposes of an LLC/LLP/etc out the window?

Seems like if you have a pending suit against Hobby Lobby, you should add the Greens to it real quick - SCOTUS just ruled they are the same.

That´s actually a very good point.

 

[Kestrel]

No. What the decision means extends well beyond that. It means that the government can't make insurance companies offer only a small menu dictated by the government as a take it or leave it option. It means that the menu of options has to be more varied. To tie it just to religion is a very short sighted view of the decision. This was a test case meant to look at the validity of the ACA's basic requirement's of coverage. The ACA lost.

The ACA rules specify that insurance should cover all FDA approved contraceptives except for the abortificants. But apparently that offends conservatives who believe that preachers should have veto power over this private decision between a woman and her doctor. And that the definition of abortificant should be decided by theologians instead of physicians.

The recommendation on what preventive care proceedures should be covered at zero cost to the patient, including the types of contraception, came from the Institute of Medicine.

 

[sunmaster14]

Hobby Lobby doesn't want to give its employees birth control but they are fine with investing in birth control manufacturers because..... values and morals and something...

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2...rgency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers

Came here to post this same story and see you beat me to it.

That the company executives behave in a hypocritical way dosn't mean they can be burdened with what has been found unconstitutional.

But wait, it was they who brought the suit. Why do hypocrites have standing?

(Please excuse me if this is a silly question as I am not a lawyer.)

If hypocrites didn't have standing, then we wouldn't need a judicial system at all. In any case, it's not clear that HL is being hypocritical. It could be that they're careless or financially unsophisticated. Or they could reasonably feel that the connection to religiously proscribed birth control is too tenuous to worry about. It is virtually impossible to disentangle yourself completely from practices that you find immoral.

For example, HL appears to be willing to employ people who use birth control. Is that hypocritical? That's probably a stronger connection to supporting proscribed practices than allowing its pension fund to invest in mutual funds which invest a small percentage of funds in companies which get a small percentage of their revenues from selling proscribed drugs.

 

[sunmaster14]

No, the decision tosses out the entire contraception mandate. If you work for a closely held company, your employer's religion decides what if any contraception methods your insurance covers.

Actually, it doesn't. You seem to be the best informed of the liberal posters here, and even you don't understand the opinion. The ruling was very narrow and essentially said that Hobby Lobby should be offered the same compromise that HHS offered to non-profit religious institutions. Which really wasn't much of a compromise at all (and that is being litigated separately).

 

[sunmaster14]

Please stop listening to talk radio. If intellectual discourse were a fine, nourishing meal, TR would be a bag of Cheetos.

And JREF would be a Twinkie served with brie and candied walnuts and drizzled with white truffle oil. Of course you wouldn't be given a spoon or a fork with which to eat it. Only tweezers.

 

[sunmaster14]

That's my other question about this ruling. The main purpose of an LLC and its other iterations is to protect and shield the individual owners from liability for the actions of the corporation. It is an independent entity. By extension if it is sued or it incurs fines or if it owes debts etc, the stakeholders can't be held as individual responsible parties for payment because the corporation owes and not the owners personally.

In this case, the Greens successfully argued that no - in fact we and our corporation are one. There is no separation. Doesn't that kinda throw one of the core purposes of an LLC/LLP/etc out the window?

Seems like if you have a pending suit against Hobby Lobby, you should add the Greens to it real quick - SCOTUS just ruled they are the same.

It may actually put the owners of Hobby Lobby at greater risk of "piercing the corporate veil." By the way:

Despite the terminology used which makes it appear as though a shareholder's limited liability emanates from the view that a corporation is a separate legal entity, the reality is that the entity status of corporations has almost nothing to do with shareholder limited liability.[2] For example, English law conferred entity status on corporations long before shareholders were afforded limited liability. Similarly, the Revised Uniform Partnership Act confers entity status on partnerships, but also provides that partners are individually liable for all partnership obligations. Therefore, this shareholder limited liability emanates mainly from statute.

 

[Kestrel]

Actually, it doesn't. You seem to be the best informed of the liberal posters here, and even you don't understand the opinion. The ruling was very narrow and essentially said that Hobby Lobby should be offered the same compromise that HHS offered to non-profit religious institutions. Which really wasn't much of a compromise at all (and that is being litigated separately).

The decision discussed Hobby Lobby's objections to four specific contraceptives, but in fact tossed out the entire contraceptive mandate. Not just the requirement to include those four drugs.

The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA. Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns.
The judgment of the Tenth Circuit in No. 13–354 is affirmed; the judgment of the Third Circuit in No. 13–356 is reversed, and that case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.

 

[Ziggurat]

The ACA rules specify that insurance should cover all FDA approved contraceptives except for the abortificants. But apparently that offends conservatives who believe that preachers should have veto power over this private decision between a woman and her doctor.

I don't have veto power over your birth control choices just because I won't pay for them.

 

[The Greater Fool]

I don't have veto power over your birth control choices just because I won't pay for them.

Hobby Lobby's argument is "We pay for this insurance, we don't want our money supporting a treatment that violates our principles."

Hobby Lobby may write the check, but the insurance belongs to the employees, and is part of their total compensation package.

If the employees arranged their own insurance, it would be exaclty the same if Hobby Lobby didn't like what the employees insurance covers, and chose to reduce the employees compensation so as "not to pay for treatment that violates our principles."

 

[sunmaster14]

The decision discussed Hobby Lobby's objections to four specific contraceptives, but in fact tossed out the entire contraceptive mandate. Not just the requirement to include those four drugs.

The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held corporations, violates RFRA. Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim raised by Conestoga and the Hahns.
The judgment of the Tenth Circuit in No. 13–354 is affirmed; the judgment of the Third Circuit in No. 13–356 is reversed, and that case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.

The key phrase is "as applied to closely held corporations..." SCOTUS left open the question of whether the accommodation that HHS has offered to non-profit religious institutions also violates the RFRA. See here (p. 13 of the brief):

The accommodation in the resulting final rule is available if a non-exempt
religious organization (1) “[o]pposes providing coverage for some or all of the
contraceptive services required”; (2) “is organized and operates as a nonprofit
entity”; (3) “holds itself out as a religious organization”; and (4) “self-certifies that
it satisfies the first three criteria.” 78 Fed. Reg. at 39874; 45 C.F.R. 147.131(b).
But objecting entities can only self-certify in one government-designated way: by
executing EBSA Form 700 and delivering it to their insurer or third party
administrators (“TPAs”). 78 Fed. Reg. at 39875; 26 C.F.R. 54.9815–2713A.

The government imposed the requirement to sign and deliver EBSA Form 700
as part of its effort to ensure that beneficiaries of plans of non-exempt employers “will still benefit from separate payments for contraceptive services without cost sharing or other charges.” 78 Fed. Reg. at 39874. Non-exempt employers with selfinsured
plans are required to use the Form to expressly designate their TPA as the
“plan administrator and claims administrator solely for the purpose of providing
payments for contraceptive services for participants and beneficiaries.” Id. at
39879; 26 C.F.R. 54.9815–2713A. Receipt of an executed EBSA Form 700
Appellate Case: 13-1540 Document: 01019207402 Date Filed: 02/24/2014 Page: 25
15
triggers a TPA’s legal obligation to make “separate payments for contraceptive
services directly for plan participants and beneficiaries.” Id. at 39875-76; see 45
C.F.R. 147.131(c)(2)(i)(B); 26 C.F.R. 54.9815–2713A(b)(2).

 

[Upchurch]

Hobby Lobby's argument is "We pay for this insurance, we don't want our money supporting a treatment that violates our principles."

Hobby Lobby may write the check, but the insurance belongs to the employees, and is part of their total compensation package.

If the employees arranged their own insurance, it would be exaclty the same if Hobby Lobby didn't like what the employees insurance covers, and chose to reduce the employees compensation so as "not to pay for treatment that violates our principles."

(Should Be) This.

 

[sunmaster14]

Hobby Lobby's argument is "We pay for this insurance, we don't want our money supporting a treatment that violates our principles."

Hobby Lobby may write the check, but the insurance belongs to the employees, and is part of their total compensation package.

If the employees arranged their own insurance, it would be exaclty the same if Hobby Lobby didn't like what the employees insurance covers, and chose to reduce the employees compensation so as "not to pay for treatment that violates our principles."

You seem to have a funny understanding of the meaning (and spelling) of the word "exactly." It is not remotely the same. Do you think that Hobby Lobby has gone snooping into their employees' private lives and has docked their pay or even fired them for "immoral" behavior? The employees can do anything they want with their property (which includes their compensation after they have earned it) and their bodies, and if Hobby Lobby didn't agree to that, I doubt it would be a viable business. Hobby Lobby and the employees can agree to any compensation package within the law. It doesn't even have to include health benefits at all, although thanks to Obamacare, Hobby Lobby will now have to pay a penalty to the government if it doesn't offer a particular package of benefits.

Note also who is the one upsetting the status quo. The RFRA was designed to protect the status quo for religious freedom. If the government wants to upset that status quo, it needs to have a compelling reason, and it needs to do so in the least restrictive way possible. All that SCOTUS has said is that the government failed to meet that burden in this case.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Hobby Lobby's argument is "We pay for this insurance, we don't want our money supporting a treatment that violates our principles."

Hobby Lobby may write the check, but the insurance belongs to the employees, and is part of their total compensation package.

If the employees arranged their own insurance, it would be exaclty the same if Hobby Lobby didn't like what the employees insurance covers, and chose to reduce the employees compensation so as "not to pay for treatment that violates our principles."

Yeah, that's what I currently find so nonsensical about this ruling. It's not like Hobby Lobby was forced to directly buy these contraceptives and distribute them to their employees.

Hobby Lobby was giving money to a third party which in turn may have given money to yet another party to provide these contraceptives to Hobby Lobby's employees. Now, Hobby Lobby gives money to their employees who themselves must pay a third party to provide the contraceptives.

They're still paying indirectly for contraceptives. Nothing's actually changed except that Hobby Lobby is now one step closer to the contraceptives they claim to dislike and their bottom line potentially gets a little fatter at the expense of their female employees.

 

[Polaris]

Yeah, that's what I currently find so nonsensical about this ruling. It's not like Hobby Lobby was forced to directly buy these contraceptives and distribute them to their employees.

Hobby Lobby was giving money to a third party which in turn may have given money to yet another party to provide these contraceptives to Hobby Lobby's employees. Now, Hobby Lobby gives money to their employees who themselves must pay a third party to provide the contraceptives.

They're still paying indirectly for contraceptives. Nothing's actually changed except that Hobby Lobby is now one step closer to the contraceptives they claim to dislike and their bottom line potentially gets a little fatter at the expense of their female employees.

They're just following the well-known Christian principle of making yourself as rich as possible.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Do you think that Hobby Lobby has gone snooping into their employees' private lives and has docked their pay or even fired them for "immoral" behavior?

So Hobby Lobby doesn't actually object to paying indirectly for contraceptives; they only object to knowing that they pay indirectly for contraceptives.

 

[tyr_13]

I don't have veto power over your birth control choices just because I won't pay for them.

Hobby Lobby could fire employees who use these forms of contraceptive then if the employee uses their pay to purchase them.

 

[The Greater Fool]

I know this is a fools errand, but...

You seem to have a funny understanding of the meaning (and spelling) of the word "exactly." It is not remotely the same.

Wow, you got me. That typo you caught really destroyed the argument.

Do you think that Hobby Lobby has gone snooping into their employees' private lives and has docked their pay or even fired them for "immoral" behavior?

Don't you? Hobby Lobby did, in fact, root through every employees insurance plan, made simple because Hobby Lobby arranged the insurance plans in question. Whether Hobby Lobby pays for a plan on the employees behalf, or pays the employee who, in turn, pays for a plan, the simple fact is: The insurance plan is owned completely by the employee.

If this is, in fact, a moral position for Hobby Lobby, why wouldn't they evaluate employee plans (as they are now) to ensure that Hobby Lobby money is not [eventually] paying for services of which they disapprove?

The fact that you find it unthinkable and nonsensical to think Hobby Lobby would evaluate each employees insurance plan, when that is in fact what they are doing, leaves you some mental gymnastics to perform.

The employees can do anything they want with their property (which includes their compensation after they have earned it) and their bodies, and if Hobby Lobby didn't agree to that, I doubt it would be a viable business.

Your doubts aside, Hobby Lobby *IS* meddling in the employees health insurance.

Hobby Lobby and the employees can agree to any compensation package within the law. It doesn't even have to include health benefits at all, although thanks to Obamacare, Hobby Lobby will now have to pay a penalty to the government if it doesn't offer a particular package of benefits.

Employers do have the option of offering compensation packages that include only the minimum legal requirements. Most employers realize that by offering the minimum, they don't get the level of employee or commitment necessary for a competitive business. The key point being, the specific health coverage being offered by Hobby Lobby was below the minimum level, hence the court case and the resulting bad decision.

Note also who is the one upsetting the status quo. The RFRA was designed to protect the status quo for religious freedom. If the government wants to upset that status quo, it needs to have a compelling reason, and it needs to do so in the least restrictive way possible. All that SCOTUS has said is that the government failed to meet that burden in this case.

Oddly, it seems the SCOTUS made this awful decision because ACA allowed non-profit religious enterprises a less objectionable (to them) path. The court claims that since such a path was offered elsewhere, it could be offered here. The Takeaway is this: Don't compromise. The ACA, by compromising with religious organizations, undermined their own case. ACA would not have lost if they didn't make this compromise.

 

[sunmaster14]

So Hobby Lobby doesn't actually object to paying indirectly for contraceptives; they only object to knowing that they pay indirectly for contraceptives.

For people who believe that a clump of cells is a human being and that killing it is immoral, life in a modern society would be impossible without making some concessions to the reality that most people do not agree with them. Some of those concessions are completely inconsistent with their professed moral view and cannot logically be reconciled with it. It's a form of cognitive dissonance, but if it brings them peace, why is it necessary to beat them about the head with the illogic of it? In fact, this kind of cognitive dissonance should be encouraged. Otherwise, it would be very difficult for people of different religions (or no religion) to live together.

 

[Upchurch]

For people who believe that a clump of cells is a human being and that killing it is immoral, life in a modern society would be impossible without making some concessions to the reality that most people do not agree with them. Some of those concessions are completely inconsistent with their professed moral view and cannot logically be reconciled with it. It's a form of cognitive dissonance, but if it brings them peace, why is it necessary to beat them about the head with the illogic of it? In fact, this kind of cognitive dissonance should be encouraged. Otherwise, it would be very difficult for people of different religions (or no religion) to live together.

The difference is in making that moral decision for oneself and making it for others. This court decision opened the door to making the decision on other's behalf.

 

[Neally]

What we see here is a profoundly illegal decision made legal, a decision that utterly and completely destroys the idea of "respecting a religion" by specifically stating in the decision that it is in RESPECT OF A RELIGION.

Here's the actual verbiage:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Now do explain how this decision creates or upholds a law to establish a religion.

Unfortunately, with this congress, we will not see the traitors to the constitution impeached promptly. Specifically stating in a decision that one is ignoring the 4th amendment is grounds for impeachment.

Here's the actual verbiage:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Now do explain how this decision violates the above.

Don't get out much, do you?
What do you think corporations are for?

They are a business structure that have many benefits. Now do explain why how a corporation that pays for something that the owner of that corporation objects to is somehow different than the owner paying for something they object to. You might then go on to explain the same for an LLC, single entity DBA, and partnership.

So Hobby Lobby doesn't actually object to paying indirectly for contraceptives; they only object to knowing that they pay indirectly for contraceptives.

Either way, they find in objectionable based on their religion. Do you presume to dictate what their religious beliefs should be?

Hobby Lobby could fire employees who use these forms of contraceptive then if the employee uses their pay to purchase them.

Wrong of course for several reasons.