Unintended Consequences of Citizens United

Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Okay. Honestly, I think your distinction has no real value or meaning. Laws are not really capable of reaching our views or beliefs. They can only really impact our actions, including the action of simply expressing our views. A corporation can express a viewpoint even if it might not be able to hold a view independent of it's constituents.

Laws that only attempt to discriminate against a certain set of beliefs might be said to attempt to prohibit the beliefs but would first violate the right to due process under the 14th and only tangentially or indirectly would they then be related to the first.

This law is not intended to discriminate against religious views and by granting a religious exemption it would in fact discriminate on the basis of religion.
Click to expand...


I think the distinction matters a great deal, particuarly in the context of this case and the ACA. What we're dealing with here is a law that requires (in essence) employers to provide certain benefits to their employees. It's not a law that prohibits employers from acting in a certain manner. That's where we run into the distinction between values/beliefs/opinions and actions.

As I see it, a law that requires a person to act contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs (Quakers and the draft, for example) are unconstitutional as applied to the person holding the religious belief. As such, if a corporation can hold religious views and the law requires them to act in a manner inconsistent with those religious views, that's an unconstitutional law as applied.
 
aeprga said:
I disagree. I don't think a corporation has any opinions at all. Its shareholders, directors and officers certainly do, and those contituencies may come to a consensus opinion about things and express that opinion through the corporate entity. But I don't view that as an opinion independent of the opinions of the consituencies represented by the corporation.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Okay. Honestly, I think your distinction has no real value or meaning. Laws are not really capable of reaching our views or beliefs. They can only really impact our actions, including the action of simply expressing our views. A corporation can express a viewpoint even if it might not be able to hold a view independent of it's constituents.

Laws that only attempt to discriminate against a certain set of beliefs might be said to attempt to prohibit the beliefs but would first violate the right to due process under the 14th and only tangentially or indirectly would they then be related to the first.

This law is not intended to discriminate against religious views and by granting a religious exemption it would in fact discriminate on the basis of religion.
Click to expand...

The last part in bold is blatantly false. In no way does it discriminate. The individual is still capable of buying the component not covered by the employers plan. They are not prohibited from doing so, nor are they forced to join the plan set forth by the company. In no way are they being discriminated against.
 
NOVA said:
Hobby Lobby is a privately held retail chain and that makes all the difference in their case....as far as publicly held corporation, that law is a stretch.
Click to expand...
I see. So they have the right to enforce their religious views on their employees cause they are a privately owned company? Since when? Doesn't that violate the rights of their employees?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I see. So they have the right to enforce their religious views on their employees cause they are a privately owned company? Since when? Doesn't that violate the rights of their employees?
Click to expand...

1) Yes, as owners of the company, they get to decide what benefits to provide

2) No, it does not violate the rights of their employees as no one is forcing their employees to:
a) use the company insurance plan
b) not buy contraceptives
c) not buy a supplemental or replacement plan

Not to mention the employee can choose to work elsewhere.
 
Superfreak said:
You may wish to re-read the OP.
Click to expand...

Nope. Maybe you should. This has nothing to do with whether a company can, in general, be required to provide a certain benefit. It's about whether they can be required to provide a certain benefit that burdens an exercise of religion.

http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/2013.06.27-Opinion.pdf

This case requires us to determine whether the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act and the Free Exercise Clause protect the plaintiffs—two
companies and their owners who run their businesses to reflect their religious
values. The companies are Hobby Lobby, a craft store chain, and Mardel, a
Christian bookstore chain. Their owners, the Greens, run both companies as
closely held family businesses and operate them according to a set of Christian
principles. They contend regulations implementing the 2010 Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act force them to violate their sincerely held religious
beliefs. In particular, the plaintiffs brought an action challenging a regulation
that requires them, beginning July 1, 2013, to provide certain contraceptive
services as a part of their employer-sponsored health care plan. Among these
services are drugs and devices that the plaintiffs believe to be abortifacients, the
use of which is contrary to their faith.
 
Superfreak said:
The last part in bold is blatantly false. In no way does it discriminate. The individual is still capable of buying the component not covered by the employers plan. They are not prohibited from doing so, nor are they forced to join the plan set forth by the company. In no way are they being discriminated against.
Click to expand...

Your strawman is false.

I did not say it discriminated against an employee.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Your strawman is false.

I did not say it discriminated against an employee.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I misunderstood... you said...

This law is not intended to discriminate against religious views and by granting a religious exemption it would in fact discriminate on the basis of religion.
Click to expand...

Who were you referring to when you said it would in fact discriminate on the basis of religion?
 
Rune said:
Uh.....thanks? It has been the same for over a year Bravs, better ease up on the feel good juice a little.
Click to expand...

Because Nova liked it, it set of my bs detectors.

http://www.mountvernon.org/educational-resources/encyclopedia/spurious-quotations

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I see. So they have the right to enforce their religious views on their employees cause they are a privately owned company? Since when? Doesn't that violate the rights of their employees?
Click to expand...

They aren't enforcing anything on anybody....its the gov. and you trying to force them to put aside their religious views to further your agenda....

They do not have to give health insurance at all if they don't want to and if they do, they have the right to say what the insurance will cover.....
you don't want it, don't take it...they cannot force it one you at all....
 
NOVA said:
They aren't enforcing anything on anybody....its the gov. and you trying to force them to put aside their religious views to further your agenda....

They do not have to give health insurance at all if they don't want to and if they do, they have the right to say what the insurance will cover.....
you don't want it, don't take it...they cannot force it one you at all....
Click to expand...


There is no "they" or "them." There is an "it." At least in the context of this case.
 
Rune said:
Uh.....thanks? It has been the same for over a year Bravs, better ease up on the feel good juice a little.
Click to expand...


I don't normally have the sig. feature on sonny....and why the hell would you want me to ease up on my Pepto Bismol...???
 
aeprga said:
There is no "they" or "them." There is an "it." At least in the context of this case.
Click to expand...


blow it you of "yur" ass, sonny.....and buy yourself a dictionary...

Motts post said..
quote_icon.png
Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople

I see. So they have the right to enforce their religious views on their employees cause they are a privately owned company? Since when? Doesn't that violate the rights of their employees?
Click to expand...

and I answered it using his terminology.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top