OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[illinilaw08]

Disagree. This is a closely held corporation. They don't have hundreds of subsidiaries or sister-companies or anything like that. It's one company that happens to have a lot of stores. It's the same as a mom and pop shop in that respect. I think it's crazy that anyone would think that a person or business like this would have to pay for something that directly contradicts their religious beliefs, especially when it's not a health risk or a life and death situation. You want birth control or the morning after pill? Go pay for it yourself. Vaccines would work the same way, assuming you have a company that is in a similar situation.

 

I mean at some point when you start implementing policies and laws that force people to give up their own rights in favor of someone else's, you all realize that's LESS democratic and LESS progressive, right? You guys don't see that as at least a fundamental diversion from liberalism, even if you don't ultimately agree with the result here?

 

A closely held corporation is still a separate entity from that of the owners, with separate assets and liabilities. And that specific corporation is not a sentient being. Hobby Lobby doesn't go to church. Its owners do. What you are saying is that you are ok with the owners' beliefs equating to that of the separate corporate entity.

 

Purely hypothetical, but from a legal standpoint, this decision, it could be argued, pierces the corporate veil by putting the religious beliefs of individuals onto that of the closely held corp. If Hobby Lobby defaults on any debt, could a creditor argue that they can get to the individual owners because their religious beliefs have pierced the corporate veil?

 

I mean, I get that the above is kind of an extreme and unlikely argument, but one of the benefits of forming a separate corporate entity is to keep liabilities separate. Why should Hobby Lobby's owners get to say that they are the corporation when it benefits them but not when it would harm them?

 

Edit: Apparently the corporate veil argument was discussed in the months prior to the decision. http://americablog.com/2014/03/corporate-w...n-aca-suit.html

 

I'm sure that courts would find a distinguishing factor here, but it's certainly an interesting rabbit hole for creditor's attorneys to head down...

Edited July 1, 2014 by illinilaw08

[StrangeSox]

Disagree. This is a closely held corporation. They don't have hundreds of subsidiaries or sister-companies or anything like that. It's one company that happens to have a lot of stores. It's the same as a mom and pop shop in that respect. I think it's crazy that anyone would think that a person or business like this would have to pay for something that directly contradicts their religious beliefs, especially when it's not a health risk or a life and death situation. You want birth control or the morning after pill? Go pay for it yourself. Vaccines would work the same way, assuming you have a company that is in a similar situation.

 

I mean at some point when you start implementing policies and laws that force people to give up their own rights in favor of someone else's, you all realize that's LESS democratic and LESS progressive, right? You guys don't see that as at least a fundamental diversion from liberalism, even if you don't ultimately agree with the result here?

 

What's great is that this framing completely ignores that what we are talking about here is earned compensation for an employee, not some of random handout.

 

I don't see it as a diversion from liberalism because private regimes of power can be just as controlling if not more so.

 

[StrangeSox]

That this even rises to the level of a substantial burden on the religious beliefs of the owners is absurd anyway.

[Jenksismyhero]

A closely held corporation is still a separate entity from that of the owners, with separate assets and liabilities. And that specific corporation is not a sentient being. Hobby Lobby doesn't go to church. Its owners do. What you are saying is that you are ok with the owners' beliefs equating to that of the separate corporate entity.

 

Purely hypothetical, but from a legal standpoint, this decision, it could be argued, pierces the corporate veil by putting the religious beliefs of individuals onto that of the closely held corp. If Hobby Lobby defaults on any debt, could a creditor argue that they can get to the individual owners because their religious beliefs have pierced the corporate veil?

 

I mean, I get that the above is kind of an extreme and unlikely argument, but one of the benefits of forming a separate corporate entity is to keep liabilities separate. Why should Hobby Lobby's owners get to say that they are the corporation when it benefits them but not when it would harm them?

 

They are separate in most respects, but corporations still only act through their owners/principals/officers. Some corporations (an S-corp for example) are treated the same as their owners for tax purposes.

 

Until birth control and the morning after pill become a "right," all you're really doing is forcing a company to give a benefit to an employee. That in of itself is wrong, but when you trump a religious right on top of it I think you go too far.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

That this even rises to the level of a substantial burden on the religious beliefs of the owners is absurd anyway.

 

When it's in direct contradiction to your religion, it's substantial.

[Jenksismyhero]

What's great is that this framing completely ignores that what we are talking about here is earned compensation for an employee, not some of random handout.

 

I don't see it as a diversion from liberalism because private regimes of power can be just as controlling if not more so.

 

Eh, I wouldn't go that far. It's a benefit, not a right.

[Jenksismyhero]

BTW, check the first 2 pages of the opinion (the summary of the opinion) and it cites 2-3 places, including the RFRA, that define persons to include corporations.

[Jenksismyhero]

A closely held corporation is still a separate entity from that of the owners, with separate assets and liabilities. And that specific corporation is not a sentient being. Hobby Lobby doesn't go to church. Its owners do. What you are saying is that you are ok with the owners' beliefs equating to that of the separate corporate entity.

 

Purely hypothetical, but from a legal standpoint, this decision, it could be argued, pierces the corporate veil by putting the religious beliefs of individuals onto that of the closely held corp. If Hobby Lobby defaults on any debt, could a creditor argue that they can get to the individual owners because their religious beliefs have pierced the corporate veil?

 

I mean, I get that the above is kind of an extreme and unlikely argument, but one of the benefits of forming a separate corporate entity is to keep liabilities separate. Why should Hobby Lobby's owners get to say that they are the corporation when it benefits them but not when it would harm them?

 

Edit: Apparently the corporate veil argument was discussed in the months prior to the decision. http://americablog.com/2014/03/corporate-w...n-aca-suit.html

 

I'm sure that courts would find a distinguishing factor here, but it's certainly an interesting rabbit hole for creditor's attorneys to head down...

 

Back to your piercing argument, here's the main difference: the statute at issue defines persons to include corporations. It specifically exempts certain corporate entities (Churches, religious organizations, charities, etc., e.g. not-for-profit corps) BASED ON RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

 

I think the holding is pretty limited. As with every decision, of course there will be a million attempts to find loop holes, but I don't see this being a big game changer in litigation against corps and their owners.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

When it's in direct contradiction to your religion, it's substantial.

But they contribute to 401k plans that include the companies that make drugs they incorrectly insist are abortifacients. And their old plan covered it anyway.

 

It's a form of compensation to employees for their labor. It's no infringement on their actual religion. This whole idea that it is is absurd.

[greg775]

Like the loudmouth O'Reilly said tonight, it is scary that four members of the court ruled against Hobby Lobby here. It's very scary four people though it was OK for Hobby Lobby owners to go against their religion to provide this FREE service.

God help our country as we move on.

[MEANS]

maybe some of us don't want "GOD" in our country

[Y2HH]

maybe some of us don't want "GOD" in our country

 

Too bad for "some of us" no matter what side they're on in this battle -- religious or not...I don't want EITHER side telling me what I have to believe.

[Balta1701]

Too bad for "some of us" no matter what side they're on in this battle -- religious or not...I don't want EITHER side telling me what I have to believe.

The important thing is that your boss can tell you what to believe. That's what counts.

[Balta1701]

Disagree. This is a closely held corporation. They don't have hundreds of subsidiaries or sister-companies or anything like that. It's one company that happens to have a lot of stores. It's the same as a mom and pop shop in that respect. I think it's crazy that anyone would think that a person or business like this would have to pay for something that directly contradicts their religious beliefs, especially when it's not a health risk or a life and death situation. You want birth control or the morning after pill? Go pay for it yourself. Vaccines would work the same way, assuming you have a company that is in a similar situation.

 

I mean at some point when you start implementing policies and laws that force people to give up their own rights in favor of someone else's, you all realize that's LESS democratic and LESS progressive, right? You guys don't see that as at least a fundamental diversion from liberalism, even if you don't ultimately agree with the result here?

Again, based on IRS rules, Walmart is a "closely held corporation". Koch Industries, Cargill, Toys R Us, Ernst and Young, PricewaterhouseCoopers, GMAC Financial Services are some other ones.

[farmteam]

Back to your piercing argument, here's the main difference: the statute at issue defines persons to include corporations. It specifically exempts certain corporate entities (Churches, religious organizations, charities, etc., e.g. not-for-profit corps) BASED ON RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

 

I think the holding is pretty limited. As with every decision, of course there will be a million attempts to find loop holes, but I don't see this being a big game changer in litigation against corps and their owners.

Right. There are plenty of instances where corporations are treated as people, because it's easier and in many ways makes a lot of sense. But it's a legal fiction. A corporation is not actually a person. There are some rights and privileges that should be held by only actually persons, not fictional ones.

 

As for your second paragraph, I think you're right. There is a decent chance that some district courts will run wild with it (as Ginsburg alluded to in her dissent), but I think only a small chance that this decision has a big impact on a precedent-setting level.

Edited July 1, 2014 by farmteam

[Balta1701]

So, say a closely held family corp is against vaccines and refuse to cover them, could they do that?

 

No, right? Gov't would need to pick up bill for that too. I understand when splitting down to individual policies they can argue there are less intrusive ways, but in my mind this is just regulating insurance by hitting a basic minimum coverage.

Justice Alito's opinion seems like it tries to limit itself to the evil that is abortion but you're right, the logic should follow to any other type of health care. It's just sort of a given that it won't get applied to men. They've clearly got no issue covering Viagra.

[bmags]

Justice Alito's opinion seems like it tries to limit itself to the evil that is abortion but you're right, the logic should follow to any other type of health care. It's just sort of a given that it won't get applied to men. They've clearly got no issue covering Viagra.

 

Someone said there is a quote that says that this only applies to contraceptives and you "can't follow this ruling to its logical conclusion".

 

Great help for lower courts. When deciding how the USSC will decide, just put yourselves in the shoes of 5 cranky old men who are terrified of clouds and women.

[Jenksismyhero]

But they contribute to 401k plans that include the companies that make drugs they incorrectly insist are abortifacients. And their old plan covered it anyway.

 

It's a form of compensation to employees for their labor. It's no infringement on their actual religion. This whole idea that it is is absurd.

 

Do they have a 401k plan? I didn't think they were big enough for that. But even so, maybe they offer their employees choices about the funds they can invest in. Then it's the employee making the choice to support that, not the company. There's no federal law forcing them to do it.

[Jenksismyhero]

maybe some of us don't want "GOD" in our country

 

Right, because freedom of religion in this country only goes one way...

[Jenksismyhero]

The important thing is that your boss can tell you what to believe. That's what counts.

 

Example?

[Jenksismyhero]

Again, based on IRS rules, Walmart is a "closely held corporation". Koch Industries, Cargill, Toys R Us, Ernst and Young, PricewaterhouseCoopers, GMAC Financial Services are some other ones.

 

How many of those are publicly traded?

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Right. There are plenty of instances where corporations are treated as people, because it's easier and in many ways makes a lot of sense. But it's a legal fiction. A corporation is not actually a person. There are some rights and privileges that should be held by only actually persons, not fictional ones.

 

As for your second paragraph, I think you're right. There is a decent chance that some district courts will run wild with it (as Ginsburg alluded to in her dissent), but I think only a small chance that this decision has a big impact on a precedent-setting level.

 

As a person running the business though, you are running the company based on how you think the company should be run. I think it's perfectly logical to extend that to any personal beliefs you have. As Alito pointed out, there are other circumstances where the "corporation" does things that "corporations" shouldn't be doing, like donating to charity. That has nothing to do with business operations or making a profit. It has to do with some belief by the management/ownership of the company to do something nice. We provide that company with tax benefits. Should we not because corporations are not people and should only be considered a legal entity performing "corporate" activities?

[bmags]

I understand the religious rights argument, but I still think there is a more compelling public health argument and employee rights argument. I realize there is a moral component, but I don't think this is any more legally out of line than creating a mandatory minimum wage in an employment contract, or other establishment of rights.

[bmags]

As a person running the business though, you are running the company based on how you think the company should be run. I think it's perfectly logical to extend that to any personal beliefs you have. As Alito pointed out, there are other circumstances where the "corporation" does things that "corporations" shouldn't be doing, like donating to charity. That has nothing to do with business operations or making a profit. It has to do with some belief by the management/ownership of the company to do something nice. We provide that company with tax benefits. Should we not because corporations are not people and should only be considered a legal entity performing "corporate" activities?

 

That example doesn't really affect employees.

[Jenksismyhero]

Justice Alito's opinion seems like it tries to limit itself to the evil that is abortion but you're right, the logic should follow to any other type of health care. It's just sort of a given that it won't get applied to men. They've clearly got no issue covering Viagra.

 

Viagra doesn't really stop pregnancies so... But at some point you guys are right, it becomes a judgment call by the court as to what is a legit religious belief and what is not. But so what? They've made those decisions numerous times in the past. People have tried to get around drug laws by doing the same thing and it hasn't really worked.

 

I just love how you guys are all "slippery slope, slippery slope!" when the decision is not what you want, but with an issue that you support (gun restrictions) the slippery slope argument is a terrible one. So which is it?