May 20, 2022, 08:34:36 AM

Author Topic: Corporation are People My Friend  (Read 969 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline elan

  • Go On ......Get In There!!!!!!!!
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 11629
  • WaRRioR fOr LiFe!!!!!
    • View Profile
Corporation are People My Friend
« on: March 26, 2014, 03:53:52 PM »
I can't see how the Supreme Court will rule in the favor of Hobby Lobby. There's no way a corporation can directly infringe on the Individual Rights of people by claiming it's religious beliefs takes precedent. Surely Individuals Rights are given greater consideration over a corporation.





Here’s what you need to know about the Hobby Lobby case


On Tuesday March 25, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, two highly anticipated cases that deal with the Affordable Care Act, religious freedom and women's access to contraception. The case won't be decided Tuesday, but we could get a clear indication of which way the justices are leaning. Here's what you need to know — and who to read — before tomorrow.


What are these cases about?

It all starts with the Affordable Care Act. The law stipulates that employers need to provide health care for their employees that covers all forms of contraception at no cost. However, some for-profit corporations have insisted they should not have to pay for all of these services — especially those that conflict with their beliefs.

The owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties don't have a problem with offering insurance that covers most forms of birth control, but they aren't willing to cover emergency contraceptives — like Plan B or ella -- or IUDs. Hobby Lobby contends its "religious beliefs prohibit them from providing health coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices that end human life after conception." The question these cases are seeking to solve is whether for-profit companies have a right to exercise religious freedom under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a federal law passed in 1993 that states the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability." If they do, does the government have a compelling interest to override it in this instance?
There is a separate set of cases dealing with whether religiously affiliated businesses are exempt from the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate.


How did this case make it to the Supreme Court? As CNN noted, "Three federal appeals courts around the country have struck down the contraception coverage rule, while two other appeals courts have upheld it. That 'circuit split' made the upcoming Supreme Court review almost certain." There are at least 47 cases that have been filed concerning for-profit companies and the contraception mandate.

Read more....
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/blUSVALW_Z4" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/blUSVALW_Z4</a>

Offline elan

  • Go On ......Get In There!!!!!!!!
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 11629
  • WaRRioR fOr LiFe!!!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Corporation are People My Friend
« Reply #1 on: July 01, 2014, 11:35:22 AM »
These flicking people rule in favor of Hobby Lobby yes.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/blUSVALW_Z4" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/blUSVALW_Z4</a>

Offline elan

  • Go On ......Get In There!!!!!!!!
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 11629
  • WaRRioR fOr LiFe!!!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Corporation are People My Friend
« Reply #2 on: July 01, 2014, 11:37:50 AM »
Supreme Court on Birth Control: What Hobby Lobby Ruling Means



The Supreme Court ruled in favor of three family-owned businesses Monday, saying they can refuse to pay for certain forms of contraception that they find morally repugnant. But the decision anticipates some of the arguments against letting employers make these decisions.

No, it doesn’t mean that employers can suddenly declare that they have religious objections to vaccines, blood transfusions or even paying taxes, the Court says. And women who work for these employers don’t necessarily have to pay for birth control themselves — the federal government can do it, the ruling says.

And it really will have very little effect on the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

“The decision leaves unchanged the key features of the historic Act,” said Ron Pollack, Executive Director of Families USA, which supports healthcare reform.

 
 
“The Supreme Court’s decision won’t change anything for people seeking insurance coverage through the new health marketplaces. It also won’t affect the vast majority of people who have employer-sponsored health insurance since most workers are in companies that are unaffected by today’s ruling,” Pollack added. “Women enrolling in coverage through a health insurance marketplace retain coverage for contraception as well as other preventive health care services.”

At issue is Obamacare’s requirement that all virtually all health insurance policies pay for a package of essential services, which include cancer screenings and vaccines as well as birth control. The family that owns Hobby Lobby and a Christian bookstore chain sued, as did a Mennonite family that owns Conestoga, a Pennsylvania-based woodworking company.

 
 
The decision says the 2010 Affordable Care Act violates a 1993 law guaranteeing religious freedom, notes that Congress defines corporations as “people,” and says only “closely held” corporations are affected, even though that includes most companies in the U.S.

“The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients,” Justice Samuel Alito writes in the majority opinion. “If the owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe they will be facilitating abortions, and if they do not comply, they will pay a very heavy price — as much as $1.3 million per day, or about $475 million per year, in the case of one of the companies.”

“It makes clear that this is not end of contraception for women."

Alito notes that the Obama White House provided an out for nonprofit religious corporations. Instead of paying for birth control themselves, an outside insurance company can do it. Alito asks, why can’t this apply to the for-profit employers, too?

In fact, why can’t the federal government just pay? “The most straightforward way of doing this would be for the Government to assume the cost of providing the four contraceptives at issue to any women who are unable to obtain them under their health-insurance policies due to their employers’ religious objections,” he writes in the opinion.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the administration is trying to decide what to do now. "It is our view ... that Congress needs to take action to solve this problem that's been created and the administration stands ready to work with them to do so," Earnest told reporters.

"President Obama believes that women should make personal health care decisions for themselves, rather than their bosses deciding for them. Today's decision jeopardizes the health of women that are employed by these companies."

 
 
Mark Rienzi, senior counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, who represents Hobby Lobby, called the ruling a victory for religious freedom. “It makes clear that this is not end of contraception for women. If the government wants to provide it then the government can provide it,” he told reporters on a conference call.

In arguing against Hobby Lobby, the Obama administration and its supporters said a ruling in favor of the companies would open the door to employers who say they have religious objections to vaccinations or even blood transfusions.

Alito’s decision answers this concern, saying the ruling applies only to contraception.

But in a dissenting opinion signed by the two other female justices and justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she didn’t buy that and says the majority ruling amounts to the court deciding which religious beliefs are worthy: “…how does the Court divine which religious beliefs are worthy of accommodation, and which are not?” she asked.

“And where is the stopping point to the ‘let the government pay’ alternative? Suppose an employer’s sincerely held religious belief is offended by health coverage of vaccines, or paying the minimum wage,” she asks.

And, Ginsburg suggested, the court’s conservative majority decided that religious objections to contraception trump laws guaranteeing a woman’s right to full health care.

"It's just not her boss' business.”

Public health and women’s rights groups were also not comforted by Alito’s attempts to limit the ruling’s ramifications. “I think it is surprising but also disturbing that we would have five male justices rule that discrimination against women is not discrimination at all,” said Ilyse Hogue, President of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, called the ruling an “outrageous step against the rights of America's women."

“Women should not be forced to jump through extra hoops to secure the fundamental health care they need. Allowing employers and CEOs to limit the health care available to employees is a gross violation of their workers' religious rights. It's just not her boss' business,” Pelosi said.

"This is a deeply troubling decision. For the first time, the highest court in the country has said that business owners can use their religious beliefs to deny their employees a benefit that they are guaranteed by law," said Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Several surveys show that most Americans support the requirement that health insurance plans pay for birth control.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/blUSVALW_Z4" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/blUSVALW_Z4</a>

Offline elan

  • Go On ......Get In There!!!!!!!!
  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 11629
  • WaRRioR fOr LiFe!!!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Corporation are People My Friend
« Reply #3 on: July 01, 2014, 11:39:18 AM »
This is some serious :bs: What's next tell me I can't use the money I made to buy beers.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/blUSVALW_Z4" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/blUSVALW_Z4</a>

Offline Toppa

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5518
    • View Profile
Re: Corporation are People My Friend
« Reply #4 on: July 01, 2014, 01:00:54 PM »
 http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

The opinion of the Court -

Emphasis here:
"There are other ways in which Congress or HHS could equally ensure that every woman has cost-free access to the particular contra- ceptives at issue here and, indeed, to all FDA-approved contraceptives. In fact, HHS has already devised and implemented a system that seeks to respect the religious liberty of reli- gious nonprofit corporations while ensuring that the em- ployees of these entities have precisely the same access to all FDA-approved contraceptives as employees of compa- nies whose owners have no religious objections to provid- ing such coverage. The employees of these religious non- profit corporations still have access to insurance coverage without cost sharing for all FDA-approved contracep- tives; and according to HHS, this system imposes no net economic burden on the insurance companies that are required to provide or secure the coverage. Although HHS has made this system available to reli- gious nonprofits that have religious objections to the con- traceptive mandate, HHS has provided no reason why the same system cannot be made available when the owners of for-profit corporations have similar religious objections. We therefore conclude that this system constitutes an alternative that achieves all of the Government’s aims while providing greater respect for religious liberty. And under RFRA, that conclusion means that enforcement of the HHS contraceptive mandate against the objecting parties in these cases is unlawful."
www.westindiantube.com

Check it out - it real bad!

Offline grimm01

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
    • View Profile
Corporation are People My Friend
« Reply #5 on: July 01, 2014, 02:29:21 PM »
Alito could say what he wants about limiting the scope of the decision but the SCOTUS opened the door with Citizens United and this cracks it open even wider.


What's stopping Hobby Lobby from coming back suing to not cover dependents of unmarried parents? How about suing for the right not to employ gays? What if a Muslim company doh want to hire Jews or women?

Slippery slope in determining what really makes a company sincere in its beliefs. How long does a company have to demonstrate sincerity before the rule applies to them? Can the Koch Brothers claim religious exemption for their company?

For a big constitutionalist like Scalia who likes to interpret it like the writers, did Thomas Jefferson envision a corporate entity receiving the same rights as an individual?

As John Oliver put it last weekend, if a company want to be like a person they need to have a lifespan like an average person and go to jail if the kill someone through negligence (GM) just like anyone else, not just get a fine.

I saw a sign online: I'll believe that corporations are people when Texas executes one.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2014, 02:31:03 PM by grimm01 »

Offline Toppa

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 5518
    • View Profile
Re: Corporation are People My Friend
« Reply #6 on: July 01, 2014, 06:11:46 PM »
Ah guess allyuh only like certain "slippery slope" arguments. When the "other side" brings up the "slippery slope" issue they're routinely rubbished.
www.westindiantube.com

Check it out - it real bad!

Offline grimm01

  • Hero Warrior
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
    • View Profile
Re: Corporation are People My Friend
« Reply #7 on: July 01, 2014, 06:44:25 PM »
Instead of slippery slope how about unintended consequences?