Corporations vote with dollars and get far more of what they want than the suckers who just use the voting booth.
Then we should vote against such corrupt government interference in markets. The Soros' & Kochs can spend all the money they like, but they can't disproportionately vote, and votes determine politicians, an politicians determine such policies. The sad part (IMO) is that most voters vote w/o much rational consideration. I expect this is b/c half of the voters pay little or no tax, therefore don't care greatly about the costs or outcomes.
I have a tangential question regarding all of this birth control controversy. Is religious objection to birth control a specifically Catholic thing?
There are numerous issues here. A few religions, and I think you are correct that it is primarily Catholics, object to means of interfering with fertilization and so to them, condoms are 'out'. Some religions object generally to the use of contraceptives outside of marriage b/c it promotes promiscuity. Some religions object to aborifactants for the obvious reason that they consider life to begin at conception.
If I understand correctly the four specific methods that Hobby Lobby objected to are 3 sorts of day after pills, and the copper IUD. Each of these prevents fertilization. The generic day-after pills are available in the US w/o prescription as "behind the counter" meds for about $40. I don't understand the HL objection to "Plan B" what would not also apply to "the pill".
Doe Catholics believe life starts *before* conception?
They believe that artificially interfering with conception/fertilization defies gods will.
As a side question, is there *official* Catholicism and then *actual practice* Catholicism? [...] That's why I can't quite make out if the objection to Birth Control is legit, or some cynical game for what end I can't begin to fathom.
Nominally practicing Catholics are generally in favor of birth control and use BC at a comparable rate as the general population according to polls. But you might want to recall from your Lutheran background that concept of sin is not determined by plebiscite. The HL decision has nothing to do with any organized religion.
Careful, don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back too hard.
Pointing out that many posters failed to comprehend even the basics of the opposing position and that their posts are filled with unwarranted derogation is not patting myself on the back.
On this thread and often on this forum a large fraction of posts are of the form ... "I disagree with X (often for no stated reason), any proponent of X is stupid, corrupt, racists, cruel, ...."
This is meant to be a place to discuss skepticism and critical thinking, not merely a place to vent emotions and sling slanderous unsupported slurs as many do.
We can't have rational debate until proponents for each position
understand and address the position of their opposition. It is crystal clear from this thread that many proponents of employer paid birth control did not even read the first two sentences of the SCOTUS decision before heaping scorn and slander on the court and drawing radically erroneous extrapolations. That is not part of rational debate.
True, but that does not mean that the corporation automatically adopts those religiou[n]s.
I never suggested that corporations automatically adopt any particular religious stance, but clearly some do, it may even be in their corporate charter that they intend to do X in a manner consistent with some religious stance. I would be rather surprised if "Lutheran Services" or "American Jewish Joint Distribution" charitable corporations didn't have some religious principles in their charters.
Corporations exist to shield owners/shareholders from the financial consequences of the corporation. They're a financial shield.
That is only one aspect of corporations. The corporate entity can be held liable (but not the investors directly) ie. can be sued. The Corp can create contracts and sue others. It can hold assets beneficially for it's members or shareholders. It is treated as a separate entity wrt taxation and regulation. So there is a lot more than liability limitation going on here.
In my opinion, that concept of a shield also should apply to the corporation. Just because the owner believes in unicorns should not in any way [something missing here ?] that the corporation does.
Imparsible confusion there in your statements. Let me CONJECTURE that you mean that a corporation should not allow it's owners beliefs (effectively it's charter) to impact it's activities.
That makes zero sense. Let's say some loons start a corporation to make widgets, and in their charter that state the corporation is also about supporting and promoting belief in unicorns. It's silly but they have every right.
This pro-unicorn corporation has every right to refuse to sell widgets to anti-unicorn people and organizations. They can even refuse to hire non-unicornists so long as that doesn't express a religious belief. They may under their charter produce pro-unicorn ads and publicity.
You need to get past the issue that you (I assume) and I think of all religious belief as voo-doo & mumbo-jumbo. Just b/c WE see no value in a belief does not mean that we can or should tell others what they may believe or or how they may act.
I think your are also of the false opinion that all corporations are purely profit oriented and will literally do anything lawful for profit. Yes, some companies are organized as for-profit for any lawful purpose, but it's generally false. For-profit companies are required to act in the beneficial interests of the owner/shareholders profit, but they must do this within the constraints of a charter or by direction of the corporate governance.
PACs are not the same as profit making corporations. False analogy.
I already said there were distinctions, but not the differences you are trying to claim.
First there are for-profit and non-profit corporation, where the for-profits (like GE) operate on behalf of shareholder/owners and the non-profits like NPR operate according to a charter without shareholders. Both can produce products and services for sale. Non-profits may be public (operating off donations) private operating off grants or investments. Many, NOT ALL, non-profits can get a tax exempt status.
There is nothing preventing either a for-profit, a private non-profit or a public non-profit from having similar charters to promote a political or religious goal.
PACs, political parties and unions (also typically non-profits), HL all can promote causes. You seem invested in a belief that only non-profits can have a charter or goal to promote a cause - that's simply not true.
[problem w US politics]
Wrong. It responds Manopolus claims wrt Citizens United. I assert that McCain_Feingold is wrongheaded to stifle corporations like PACs, unions & CU when they promote their political ends. The problem is not that citizens organize as corporations to promote their causes or religious views, but that voters are ill-informed, misled and given primarily polarizing, ignorant and inflammatory rhetoric by a defective press that we should expect to report with some level of objectivity and balance.
Let me get this straight: the problem with American politics isn't money and organizations; it's money and organizations?
Yes you got it right, the problem is not
generally with money and organizations that are expected to be partisan or opinionated, but specifically that voters place undue reliance on
specific organizations we collectively call "the press". Thanks for the nice example of an over-generalization fallacy.
