Biggest US Supreme Court ruling of the year

[Murkwood]

They're a corporation, they don't have rights, their personal views don't belong in their business.

Incorrect- corporate bodies do have rights.

Exactly. That's what this case was about. Corporate/Religious rights.

[Murkwood]

They aren't forcing people not to take birth control. They just aren't covering it.

what is the difference between paying for insurance that might provide birth control and pay out a paycheck that might be used for birth control?

It's symbolic.

[Lenciland]

So I can expect to see the Michelin Man walking around holding an assault rifle and reading the Torah? Corporations are not people, they don't have human rights. Can corporations form militias?

Militias? Well ...

I was hyperbolizing, saying that the Michelin Man and Aunt Jemima can get together and start a militia.

They're a corporation, they don't have rights, their personal views don't belong in their business.

Incorrect- corporate bodies do have rights.

I'm arguing that they shouldn't have rights.

[Murkwood]

Militias? Well ...

I was hyperbolizing, saying that the Michelin Man and Aunt Jemima can get together and start a militia.

Incorrect- corporate bodies do have rights.

I'm arguing that they shouldn't have rights.

You said "they don't", not "they shouldn't".

[Ashmoria]

what is the difference between paying for insurance that might provide birth control and pay out a paycheck that might be used for birth control?

It's symbolic.

or imaginary

[Galloism]

It's symbolic.

or imaginary

I'm going with "imaginary".

[Caninope]

I was hyperbolizing, saying that the Michelin Man and Aunt Jemima can get together and start a militia.

I'm arguing that they shouldn't have rights.

You said "they don't", not "they shouldn't".

Even further, it's in the interest of people everywhere that corporate bodies have at least some rights.

[Maineiacs]

You said "they don't", not "they shouldn't".

Even further, it's in the interest of people everywhere that corporate bodies have at least some rights.

Not at the expense of actual people.

[Myrensis]

Even further, it's in the interest of people everywhere that corporate bodies have at least some rights.

I agree, and personally I hope the Supreme Court expands greatly on this 'The corporation and it's owners are one and the same person."

Corporate wrong-doing? Sue the owners personally!

Corporate debts? The owners should be personally responsible for paying back every penny of the company debt if it goes under or hits hard times.

Or is it just their rights owners get to apply to corporations, none of the responsibilities?

It's almost as though that was the whole reason for creating corporations as legal entities in the first place.

[Islamic republiq of Julundar]

[/color]
Militias? Well ...

I was hyperbolizing, saying that the Michelin Man and Aunt Jemima can get together and start a militia.

Incorrect- corporate bodies do have rights.

I'm arguing that they shouldn't have rights.

Corporations have zillions of money, they can easily hire mercenary armies; they cannot organize Militia. Militia are Free-born |Citizens wh have proper jobs to go home to when the War is over. Mercenaries just move on to the next War.

[Murkwood]

Even further, it's in the interest of people everywhere that corporate bodies have at least some rights.

Not at the expense of actual people.

People don't realize this.

A company not buying birth control for it's employees ≠ people can't buy birth control

It's not hurting anyone.

[Myrensis]

Not at the expense of actual people.

People don't realize this.

A company not buying birth control for it's employees ≠ people can't buy birth control

It's not hurting anyone.

People can also pay for blood transfusions and organ transplants themselves, yet we don't allow "Muh religion!" as an excuse to refuse to cover those.

[Gauthier]

People don't realize this.

A company not buying birth control for it's employees ≠ people can't buy birth control

It's not hurting anyone.

People can also pay for blood transfusions and organ transplants themselves, yet we don't allow "Muh religion!" as an excuse to refuse to cover those.

Just wait for Jehovah's Witnesses to try thanks to Hobby Lobby.

[Murkwood]

People don't realize this.

A company not buying birth control for it's employees ≠ people can't buy birth control

It's not hurting anyone.

People can also pay for blood transfusions and organ transplants themselves, yet we don't allow "Muh religion!" as an excuse to refuse to cover those.

That's why it's on a case-by-case basis.

[JesusOfNazareth]

But what if those employers have legitimate religious objections to it? If they don't buy it, it's not like their employees can't get it.

The point is that religious objections aren't legitimate when you're forcing them on other people.

The notion that Hobby Lobby or some like minded company is forcing their religion on others is such a load of crap.
Hobby Lobby is not demanding that the employees pray to the Christian Holy Trinity, get baptized or engage in dietary restrictions.

All they are saying is that there are four types of contraception that they view as abortificients, that they want no part of having any kind of contract that deals with those four methods, and they have the religious freedom to opt out of those four methods.

Let me know when the Hobby Lobby Gestapo appears near the counter of your local pharmacy.

[Brickistan]

People can also pay for blood transfusions and organ transplants themselves, yet we don't allow "Muh religion!" as an excuse to refuse to cover those.

That's why it's on a case-by-case basis.

You can't run the law on a case-by-case basis. It's either or...

Either any company can claim religious exemption or none can claim it.

And that's exactly the issue here. The ruling is so narrow that it's clear it's about Christian beliefs.

Not that it really matters, mind you. No religious belief (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Pastafarian...) should be forced on anyone.

The point is that religious objections aren't legitimate when you're forcing them on other people.

The notion that Hobby Lobby or some like minded company is forcing their religion on others is such a load of crap.
Hobby Lobby is not demanding that the employees pray to the Christian Holy Trinity, get baptized or engage in dietary restrictions.

All they are saying is that there are four types of contraception that they view as abortificients, that they want no part of having any kind of contract that deals with those four methods, and they have the religious freedom to opt out of those four methods.

Let me know when the Hobby Lobby Gestapo appears near the counter of your local pharmacy.

Of course they're forcing their religion on their employees.

What they're basically saying is that their religiously-derived morals should be allowed to decide what kind of insurance coverage their employees can get. That's forcing their religion on their employees.

[Ashmoria]

The point is that religious objections aren't legitimate when you're forcing them on other people.

The notion that Hobby Lobby or some like minded company is forcing their religion on others is such a load of crap.
Hobby Lobby is not demanding that the employees pray to the Christian Holy Trinity, get baptized or engage in dietary restrictions.

All they are saying is that there are four types of contraception that they view as abortificients, that they want no part of having any kind of contract that deals with those four methods, and they have the religious freedom to opt out of those four methods.

Let me know when the Hobby Lobby Gestapo appears near the counter of your local pharmacy.

which is why it ISNT A RELIGIOUS THING. the same test YOU use for your example is a good example of why it isn't religious to begin with.

the religious freedom act was passed so that people in odd religions could practices their freaking religion. having a for profit business that has to provide standard insurance has nothing to do with the religious freedom of the stockholders no matter how few of them there are.

[Myrensis]

People can also pay for blood transfusions and organ transplants themselves, yet we don't allow "Muh religion!" as an excuse to refuse to cover those.

That's why it's on a case-by-case basis.

That's why it's idiotic. And as noted in the dissent, puts the Court in the position of getting to declare, on a 'case-by-case basis', that "That religious belief is good and important, so it gets protections. This religious belief is stupid, no protection for you!".

I expect the people getting all excited about this ruling will be less so once the inevitable flood of lawsuits crops up and the courts start telling people, "No, your religious beliefs are invalid, go away."

All they are saying is that there are four types of contraception that they view as abortificients, that they want no part of having any kind of contract that deals with those four methods, and they have the religious freedom to opt out of those four methods.

Hobby Lobby is not a person. Hobby Lobby does not have religious freedom.

But hey, if we want to decide that corporations and the people who own them are one and the same thing for legal purposes, I'm all in favor of that, so long as it applies to responsibilities as well as to rights.

Company does something illegal? All shareholder/owners should be held criminally liable.

Corporation loses money/goes into debt? All shareholders/owners are personally liable for payment of all debts.

[Donut section]

I'm not American so I'm not sure how your system works, but isn't insurance an employee entitlement, as in part of their salary, like holidays and sick leave?

If it is what does it have to do with the employer?
Also, if it is do employers who deny it required to pay the difference in a higher salary?

[Alien Space Bats]

I'm glad the Supreme Court took the side of Life on this issue.

It's not really the side of life. They're allowing companies to refuse birth control in health insurance plans for employees. That's not the side of life.

No, it is on the side of life. But we can have that debate later.

I'm glad the Supreme Court has been being more proactive in protecting religious freedoms.

No, we should have that debate right here and now.

The Court was careful not to actually base its ruling on the idea that the 4 contraceptive methods Hobby Lobby doesn't support serve as abortifacients; what it said was that the plaintiffs BELIEVED they were abortifacients, and that belief was enough.

It would be a little like saying that if the matter comes down to BELIEF, and I BELIEVE that the Moon is made of green cheese, it doesn't really matter what the actual truth is; as far as I'm concerned, it's my BELIEF that takes precedence. As others have pointed out, the contraceptives in question are NOT, in fact, abortifacients — whatever the plaintiffs believe. So this is not a ruling in favor of "life"; it's a ruling in favor of the right to irresponsibly call black pink, ignore any and all efforts at correction by continuing to INSIST that black is pink regardless of the evidence, and get away with it.

As for religious freedom, that too was left at the door. The Court effectively ruled that the resistance of certain Christians to abortion and/or birth control was MORE valid and MORE worthy of legal protection than opposition by Jehovah's Witnesses to transfusions, opposition by Scientologists to psychiatry, or opposition by various fringe religious groups to vaccination (among other beliefs). It wasn't an endorsement of the sanctity of religious belief; it was an expression of support for ONE religious doctrine over others, which makes it especially distasteful.

[Alien Space Bats]

They aren't forcing people not to take birth control. They just aren't covering it.

what is the difference between paying for insurance that might provide birth control and pay out a paycheck that might be used for birth control?

It's symbolic.

So if a corporation dislikes the "symbolism" of "paying for contraception" by giving their employees money in exchange for their labor, it can demand that their employees provide them receipts to account for how their pay is being spent, and then dock future paychecks for spending they think is sinful, such as contraceptives, trips to bars, racetracks, and casinos, spending or shellfish or pork, etc.?

That's the insidious thing about this: If an employer is self-insured, then MAYBE it could argue that the contraceptive mandate violates its religious rights; but if the employer is simply contracting with a LEGALLY DISTINCT AND SEPARATE THIRD-PARTY to provide medical insurance to employees in accordance with the advice of OUTSIDE doctors, then it isn't REALLY paying for ANYTHING AT ALL. It's provide health insurance as part of an OVERALL COMPENSATION PACKAGE, right along with (and inseparable from) pay. If it can't tell employees how to use their pay, then it can't tell employees how to use their insurance; if it CAN tell employees how to use their insurance, then it has the right to tell them how to use their PAY, too.

That, too, is something the Supreme Court got wrong: Hobby Lobby wasn't being asked to provide CONTRACEPTION to its employees. It was being asked to provide INSURANCE to its employees, with the USE of that insurance by those employees being a separate and distinct matter between said insurer and said employees — and no more Hobby Lobby's business than the question of what goods the local grocery store might sell said employees for purchase with the MONEY Hobby Lobby paid them for their work, right along with that insurance. The employer mandate within the ACA was strictly a mandate for employers to provide INSURANCE to their employees; along with that mandate, the ACA mandated what kinds of policies INSURERS can offer the public, and it's THAT mandate that requires payment for contraception.

From my perspective, Hobby Lobby's case should have been thrown out on the basis of STANDING. Were it my opinion, I'd have told Hobby Lobby that they weren't paying for anything except INSURANCE, and unless or until they could show me that their faith prohibits buying anyone INSURANCE, they had no case; I'd then go on to tell them (obiter dictum) that if they wanted to go after the contraceptive mandate, they'd have to first find an INSURER with a religious objection to contraception; once they did that, THEN they could challenge whether or not the government had the right to demand that health insurance cover contraception — and that until then, they could either fish or cut bait.

But either way, Hobby Lobby had (IMNSHO) no right to sue on behalf of INSURERS — which, in my mind, was essentially what they were doing; and the ESPECIALLY had no right to do this absent proof those insurers gave a damn about paying for contraception. I can't sue because I'm offended by the moral consequences of the personal and/or financial relationships between OTHER parties and how those OUTSIDE relationships sit in light of my religious beliefs. I don't have standing to do that, and Hobby Lobby shouldn't have been given standing to do it, either.

[Ifreann]

This isn't religious freedom either. This is allowing companies to shove their religion down their employees throats.

What? No. If they want to, the employees can still buy birth control. The company's religious views differ, so they don't want to pay for something they fundamentally agree with.

I wonder if that would fly if they fundamentally disagreed with taxes...

[Alien Space Bats]

Corporations have zillions of money, they can easily hire mercenary armies; they cannot organize Militia. Militia are Free-born |Citizens wh have proper jobs to go home to when the War is over. Mercenaries just move on to the next War.

You DO realize that the 14th Amendment extends the Bill of Rights to non-citizen residents of the United States, right?

This touches on a separate subject, but there was a protest against illegal immigration here in Michigan within a couple of hours drive from where I live (in Vassar; I live in Ypsilanti). One of the protestors carried a sign saying "The Bill of Rights is for CITIZENS".

I wish I'd been there to walk up to that person, point at the sign, and tell them: "You're wrong; go back and read your Constitution". Non-citizens have many of the same rights citizens do, including the right to due process (which is apparently what that protester up in Vassar was wrongly trying to contest).

And that includes gun rights: When I put in a short stint as a contract IT consultant at Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan (BC/BSM), getting a CWL was something of a fad among the male employees (this was in 2011, when the Tea Party was a hot thing). Several of my male colleagues bought handguns, went to classes, and got their licenses — including 2-3 Indian nationals who were here on work visas. The law and the Constitution allow this; in America, guns are not just for American citizens.

So yes, corporations can own guns; they might even be able to organize militias. This is what legal personhood entails: If you're a legal person, you have the right to do anything that any other person can do.

So now I'm just waiting for corporate adoptions...

[Alien Space Bats]

I'm not American so I'm not sure how your system works, but isn't insurance an employee entitlement, as in part of their salary, like holidays and sick leave?

If it is what does it have to do with the employer?
Also, if it is do employers who deny it required to pay the difference in a higher salary?

Yes, it's part of the overall compensation package.

Mind you, ever since the ACA was enacted, conservatives have been trying to pretend otherwise; they've insanely tried to recharacterize it as some kind of "gift" or "gratuity" that employers give their employees entirely outside of the normal compensation arrangement, but that's just bunkum. Existing law in a number of areas (most notably, tax and labor) considers non-payroll compensation (collectively referred to as "benefits") to still be compensation nonetheless — however hard today's conservatives may scream about it.

[Mavorpen]

Not at the expense of actual people.

People don't realize this.

A company not buying birth control for it's employees ≠ people can't buy birth control.

The company doesn't buy birth control for its employees in the first place, so this is nothing more than a red herring.