OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[Balta1701]

Why are you stuck on this? The employee doesn't have to abide by anything. They just have to pay for it themselves. You keep bringing this up as if Hobby Lobby is slapping chastity belts on women.

Tell you what, you change your religion or pay a $1000 fine. Equally fair.

[Jenksismyhero]

When did you become Duke with the nonsense?

 

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

To be clear, both of the things at issue in this ruling were statutes, not constitutional rights. The RFRA is no more or less of a right than the regulatory requirement on the minimum standards that health insurance benefits must meet.

[Balta1701]

When did you become Duke with the nonsense?

When the idea that a corporation could have religious freedom was declared to not be nonsense.

[StrangeSox]

So you're saying an employer shouldn't run the business per the wishes of the owners of the company. It must abide by the wishes and demands (and beliefs) of its employees?

 

What world do you live in?

 

Businesses should have to abide by the generally applicable laws and regulations that apply to all businesses without being able to get around the law because of religious beliefs.

[StrangeSox]

Why are you stuck on this? The employee doesn't have to abide by anything. They just have to pay for it themselves. You keep bringing this up as if Hobby Lobby is slapping chastity belts on women.

 

Right, they've lost something that is otherwise legally required of employers because their employer thinks its icky. Why is that a good thing? Why should my employers' religious beliefs be able to be used to deprive me of compensation I'm otherwise legally entitled to?

Edited July 1, 2014 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Hobby Lobby gets a tax break for compensating employees with health care benefits. Since they're refusing to meet the statutory minimums for the quality of those benefits, should they still be entitled to the tax breaks?

[farmteam]

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?

Maybe on some level. It also has a hell of a lot to do with making the corporation look good. That's a corporate activity.

 

Also, we generally want to incentivize charitable giving. The First Amendment says we neither incentivize nor disincentivize practicing a religion.

[Jenksismyhero]

Right, they've lost something that is otherwise legally required of employers because their employer thinks its icky. Why is that a good thing? Why should my employers' religious beliefs be able to be used to deprive me of compensation I'm otherwise legally entitled to?

 

Except those exempted by the same law. Exempted mind you, because of, among other reasons, religious beliefs.

 

I take it you and Balta think we should get rid of the exemptions right?

[Jenksismyhero]

Businesses should have to abide by the generally applicable laws and regulations that apply to all businesses without being able to get around the law because of religious beliefs.

 

Again, that's not the law.

[StrangeSox]

Again, that's not the law.

 

The RFRA is a separate law. They had no exemption under the PPACA.

[Jenksismyhero]

When the idea that a corporation could have religious freedom was declared to not be nonsense.

 

Still doesn't get around the fact that you're making an awful argument that the owners of a company shouldn't have the right to operate THEIR OWN f***ING COMPANY as they see fit, but must instead abide by the demands of the employees.

 

Every single employee in this country disagrees with SOMETHING their employer does or does not do.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Still doesn't get around the fact that you're making an awful argument that the owners of a company shouldn't have the right to operate THEIR OWN f***ING COMPANY as they see fit, but must instead abide by the demands of the employees.

 

Every single employee in this country disagrees with SOMETHING their employer does or does not do.

And every single company in this country abides by rules set regarding their operation that they may not agree with as well. Should Hobby Lobby's owners have a right to not employ Catholics? After all, that's operating THEIR OWN f***ING COMPANY as they see fit.

[Jenksismyhero]

The RFRA is a separate law. They had no exemption under the PPACA.

 

They who? Churches and other not-for-profit corporations did/do. That was the point - why are we allowing exemptions to some corps but not others like Hobby Lobby.

[StrangeSox]

Still doesn't get around the fact that you're making an awful argument that the owners of a company shouldn't have the right to operate THEIR OWN f***ING COMPANY as they see fit, but must instead abide by the demands of the employees.

 

Every single employee in this country disagrees with SOMETHING their employer does or does not do.

 

They must abide by statutory requirements and regulations, not whatever their employees decide. They have the right to operate their corporation, which is solely a creation of the state, within the confines of the law. They should not be able to get exemptions from that law because they have some weird religious hangups about sex and objectively wrong beliefs about certain types of medical treatments.

[Balta1701]

They must abide by statutory requirements and regulations, not whatever their employees decide. They have the right to operate their corporation, which is solely a creation of the state, within the confines of the law. They should not be able to get exemptions from that law because they have some weird religious hangups about sex and objectively wrong beliefs about certain types of medical treatments.

Just as the employees could work somewhere else, they could shut down their company just as readily if they don't like the requirements.

[Jenksismyhero]

And every single company in this country abides by rules set regarding their operation that they may not agree with as well. Should Hobby Lobby's owners have a right to not employ Catholics? After all, that's operating THEIR OWN f***ING COMPANY as they see fit.

 

Nope.

 

Seriously Balta, did you even read the opinion? Or are you relying on a bunch of blogs whose narrative fits your own? It seems like you don't even understand the context of the opinion. You're extrapolating, as most reviewers have, about what this possibly means, when we all know in 6 months and 100 court cases later it'll be much more refined and narrowed. That's how the law works.

[StrangeSox]

They who? Churches and other not-for-profit corporations did/do. That was the point - why are we allowing exemptions to some corps but not others like Hobby Lobby.

 

The non-profit distinction is one important part. The Catholic church is obviously in the "business" of the Catholic faith. Hobby Lobby is in the business of selling arts and crafts for profit.

 

Still, this ruling didn't say that the PPACA exemptions are expanded to every form of corporation. What it said was that Hobby Lobby has an RFRA exemption. That's an important distinction if you're going to try to argue that they didn't have a legal obligation to their employees under the PPACA to provide health insurance which includes contraceptive care.

[StrangeSox]

Just as the employees could work somewhere else, they could shut down their company just as readily if they don't like the requirements.

Hey, if you want to claim your personal beliefs pierce the corporate veil into the everyday operations and payroll functions of your arts and crafts store, then you shouldn't have any objection to the veil being pierced from the other side when it comes to personal liability.

[Balta1701]

Nope.

 

Seriously Balta, did you even read the opinion? Or are you relying on a bunch of blogs whose narrative fits your own? It seems like you don't even understand the context of the opinion. You're extrapolating, as most reviewers have, about what this possibly means, when we all know in 6 months and 100 court cases later it'll be much more refined and narrowed. That's how the law works.

Really, there are companies in this country that have no rules? Wait, you're right.

 

Fine, every single company in this country other than a handful of firms on wall street has to abide by rules and regulations set by the government.

[StrangeSox]

I heard on the radio that the Supreme Court clarified today via the denial of cert for a few other cases that this ruling applies to all contraceptives, not just those Hobby Lobby objected to.

[Jenksismyhero]

They must abide by statutory requirements and regulations, not whatever their employees decide. They have the right to operate their corporation, which is solely a creation of the state, within the confines of the law. They should not be able to get exemptions from that law because they have some weird religious hangups about sex and objectively wrong beliefs about certain types of medical treatments.

 

And the court determined that the statutory requirements were not constitutional so...

 

Oh yeah. Liberal mantra: the opinion doesn't fit with my beliefs so, worst possible decision ever, end of world.

[Jenksismyhero]

Hey, if you want to claim your personal beliefs pierce the corporate veil into the everyday operations and payroll functions of your arts and crafts store, then you shouldn't have any objection to the veil being pierced from the other side when it comes to personal liability.

 

That happens when the owners are directly involved in the act....most frequently in....closed held, private corps!!

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Really, there are companies in this country that have no rules? Wait, you're right.

 

Fine, every single company in this country other than a handful of firms on wall street has to abide by rules and regulations set by the government.

 

No, i'm saying that certain companies were exempted, by law, from this mandate. So the question was why them and not others. It was not about "why do companies get to pick and choose what laws they want to follow in the name of religion" as you're trying to make it out to be.

 

[bmags]

And the court determined that the statutory requirements were not constitutional so...

 

Oh yeah. Liberal mantra: the opinion doesn't fit with my beliefs so, worst possible decision ever, end of world.

 

Yes, that is the liberal mantra. Also, conservatives have never disagreed with a court decision.