Businesses have religious liberty....

Current news and it's political impact.

Re: Businesses have religious liberty....

Postby John Galt » Wed Jul 02, 2014 11:36 am

exploited wrote:I didn't say it had anything to do with corporate personhood. All I said is that any belief qualifies as a religious belief, even if it is entirely based upon a scientific understanding of an issue. That must be the case, because Hobby Lobby presented a scientific argument that is also horribly wrong.

That is how Hobby Lobby can support contraceptive use but not support these contraceptives: they believe these drugs prevent fertilized eggs from reaching the uterus, which is definitively a scientific and not religious belief. The fact that they are wrong is thus what makes it a religious belief, presumably.


you can believe fervently in the flying spagetti monster

further it's not a religious belief. copper IUDs are used up to 5 days post-coitus explicitly because of it's fertalized egg destroying powers
Americans learn only from catastrophe and not from experience. -- Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
John Galt
Technical Admin
 
Posts: 12421
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 3:22 pm
Location: Bowling Green Massacre Survivor
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 580 times
Been thanked: 1295 times
Political Leaning: Classic Liberal

Re: Businesses have religious liberty....

Postby Kane » Wed Jul 09, 2014 11:29 am

Did the court, at any point, specify what constitutes a "closely held corporation?" Are they just using the IRS definition? And if so, how doesn't that violate equality under the law (If each corporation is to be seen as a person)? Aside from that, doesn't this provide the precedent for future recriminations against other forms of healthcare? If they don't comport with the company's religious beliefs? How many corporations are about to go Amish?
Stephen Jay Gould wrote:When people learn no tools of judgment and merely follow their hopes, the seeds of political manipulation are sown.
User avatar
Kane
Governor
 
Posts: 7395
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 1:09 pm
Location: The Yay
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 306 times
Been thanked: 499 times
Political Leaning: Rockefeller Republican

Re: Businesses have religious liberty....

Postby eynon81 » Wed Jul 09, 2014 11:42 am

Kane wrote:Did the court, at any point, specify what constitutes a "closely held corporation?" Are they just using the IRS definition? And if so, how doesn't that violate equality under the law (If each corporation is to be seen as a person)? Aside from that, doesn't this provide the precedent for future recriminations against other forms of healthcare? If they don't comport with the company's religious beliefs? How many corporations are about to go Amish?



all very good questions.

my guess is publicly traded vs not publicly traded.
User avatar
eynon81
VIP
VIP
 
Posts: 19475
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 10:38 am
Location: Golden, Colorado
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 3875 times
Been thanked: 1821 times
Political Leaning: Very Conservative

Re: Businesses have religious liberty....

Postby exploited » Wed Jul 09, 2014 11:44 am

eynon81 wrote:
Kane wrote:Did the court, at any point, specify what constitutes a "closely held corporation?" Are they just using the IRS definition? And if so, how doesn't that violate equality under the law (If each corporation is to be seen as a person)? Aside from that, doesn't this provide the precedent for future recriminations against other forms of healthcare? If they don't comport with the company's religious beliefs? How many corporations are about to go Amish?



all very good questions.

my guess is publicly traded vs not publicly traded.


They didn't make a distinction. They did say that it was unlikely for a public corporation to pursue it because there are thousands of shareholders. So you could conceivably have a public corporation call itself religious but it is very unlikely.
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 21039
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2216 times
Been thanked: 1702 times

Re: Businesses have religious liberty....

Postby eynon81 » Wed Jul 09, 2014 11:53 am

exploited wrote:
eynon81 wrote:
Kane wrote:Did the court, at any point, specify what constitutes a "closely held corporation?" Are they just using the IRS definition? And if so, how doesn't that violate equality under the law (If each corporation is to be seen as a person)? Aside from that, doesn't this provide the precedent for future recriminations against other forms of healthcare? If they don't comport with the company's religious beliefs? How many corporations are about to go Amish?



all very good questions.

my guess is publicly traded vs not publicly traded.


They didn't make a distinction. They did say that it was unlikely for a public corporation to pursue it because there are thousands of shareholders. So you could conceivably have a public corporation call itself religious but it is very unlikely.


I'm starting to feel like Lando.
Image
User avatar
eynon81
VIP
VIP
 
Posts: 19475
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 10:38 am
Location: Golden, Colorado
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 3875 times
Been thanked: 1821 times
Political Leaning: Very Conservative

Re: Businesses have religious liberty....

Postby John Galt » Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:19 pm

eynon81 wrote:
Kane wrote:Did the court, at any point, specify what constitutes a "closely held corporation?" Are they just using the IRS definition? And if so, how doesn't that violate equality under the law (If each corporation is to be seen as a person)? Aside from that, doesn't this provide the precedent for future recriminations against other forms of healthcare? If they don't comport with the company's religious beliefs? How many corporations are about to go Amish?



all very good questions.

my guess is publicly traded vs not publicly traded.


http://www.irs.gov/Help-&-Resources/Too ... Entities-5

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... are-there/

and they are private. the IRS is the one making up these definitions, not the court
Americans learn only from catastrophe and not from experience. -- Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
John Galt
Technical Admin
 
Posts: 12421
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 3:22 pm
Location: Bowling Green Massacre Survivor
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 580 times
Been thanked: 1295 times
Political Leaning: Classic Liberal

Re: Businesses have religious liberty....

Postby Kane » Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:24 pm

Well the ruling is kinda terrible. They upheld the mandatory healthcare provision in an earlier case but are here carving out specific exemptions. Aside from that, these exemptions are wholly religious as all scientific evidence seems to indicate there are real health concerns that are effectively addressed by these contraceptives...

The court took the moment to carve out this specific exemption due to a failure of the legislation to correctly identify the items as prurient to general healthcare. As necessary to effect the courts prior ruling on the mandate and provisions contained therein. It seems the court did this merely because it could...and as Ginsburg noted, had opened a vast chasm of possibilities that will have to be addressed by the court.
Stephen Jay Gould wrote:When people learn no tools of judgment and merely follow their hopes, the seeds of political manipulation are sown.
User avatar
Kane
Governor
 
Posts: 7395
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 1:09 pm
Location: The Yay
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 306 times
Been thanked: 499 times
Political Leaning: Rockefeller Republican

Re: Businesses have religious liberty....

Postby Kane » Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:29 pm

John Galt wrote:
eynon81 wrote:
Kane wrote:Did the court, at any point, specify what constitutes a "closely held corporation?" Are they just using the IRS definition? And if so, how doesn't that violate equality under the law (If each corporation is to be seen as a person)? Aside from that, doesn't this provide the precedent for future recriminations against other forms of healthcare? If they don't comport with the company's religious beliefs? How many corporations are about to go Amish?



all very good questions.

my guess is publicly traded vs not publicly traded.


http://www.irs.gov/Help-&-Resources/Too ... Entities-5

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... are-there/

and they are private. the IRS is the one making up these definitions, not the court


But is that how the court intended the terms to be intrepreted?
Stephen Jay Gould wrote:When people learn no tools of judgment and merely follow their hopes, the seeds of political manipulation are sown.
User avatar
Kane
Governor
 
Posts: 7395
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 1:09 pm
Location: The Yay
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 306 times
Been thanked: 499 times
Political Leaning: Rockefeller Republican

Re: Businesses have religious liberty....

Postby eynon81 » Wed Jul 09, 2014 2:46 pm

Kane wrote:Well the ruling is kinda terrible. They upheld the mandatory healthcare provision in an earlier case but are here carving out specific exemptions. Aside from that, these exemptions are wholly religious as all scientific evidence seems to indicate there are real health concerns that are effectively addressed by these contraceptives...

The court took the moment to carve out this specific exemption due to a failure of the legislation to correctly identify the items as prurient to general healthcare. As necessary to effect the courts prior ruling on the mandate and provisions contained therein. It seems the court did this merely because it could...and as Ginsburg noted, had opened a vast chasm of possibilities that will have to be addressed by the court.


I think that one nuance is that the insurance mandate was congress where-as the BC mandate was HHS.

HHS can't levy taxes.
User avatar
eynon81
VIP
VIP
 
Posts: 19475
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 10:38 am
Location: Golden, Colorado
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 3875 times
Been thanked: 1821 times
Political Leaning: Very Conservative

Previous

Post a reply

Quote Selected
 

Return to Front Page News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron