Unintended Consequences of Citizens United

Mott the Hoople said:
Permitting corporations and business to enforce their religious views on their employees and establishing a precedent for Corporations and business to hide from regulation by claiming it violates their religious freedom.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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...


No, it is not independent of the constituent members. That is true of any church or group whether incorporated or not.

The fact is that a corporation may engage in religious actions and those incorporated for expressly religious purposes should have greater protections. Hobby Lobby sells arts and crafts, though, and I don't see why their religious views should entitle to them to exemption from the law.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma based company filed suit in federal court against the provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires large employers to provide insurance which includes contraception. The 10th circuit court ruled in favor of the Government but the appealate court for the 10th circuit court ruled that the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010 , which upheld a free-speech right for corporations, conferred a right to religious expression on businesses.

Now...not to get hung up on the contraception issue but this is another example of the unintended consequences of the Citizens United Decision.

I mean based on this decision by the appealate court and using Citizens United as precedent a corporation or business can disregard any federal law or regulation that violates their corporation or businesses religious beliefs.

Food for though, huh?

http://news.yahoo.com/democratic-se...hobby-lobby-birth-control-case-025129006.html
Click to expand...

So you think businesses need to bow to government will always and have no say? How statist of you
 
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...

You are correct. A corporation is simply a stack of paper. A legal document. It is the officers of the company, directors etc... that dictate how the company should be run. It is their decision collectively or in some cases individually (largely determined by ownership stakes) on how their company will be run. Part of that decision is what benefits to provide.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
No, it is not independent of the constituent members. That is true of any church or group whether incorporated or not.

The fact is that a corporation may engage in religious actions and those incorporated for expressly religious purposes should have greater protections. Hobby Lobby sells arts and crafts, though, and I don't see why their religious views should entitle to them to exemption from the law.
Click to expand...


Engaging in religious activities is different from having religious opinions/view/beliefs that are entitled to First Amendment protection.
 
Superfreak said:
So you think the court deciding that the company does not have to provide a certain benefit has nothing to do with the corporation choosing what benefits to offer?
Click to expand...

The court is not simply deciding that a company does not have to provide a certain benefit. The law says they do. One could possibly challenge whether Congress has such authority but it is pretty much settled law that they do under the interstate commerce clause and the law is not being challenged on those grounds. Your argument has nothing to with the particulars of this case.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
No, it is not independent of the constituent members. That is true of any church or group whether incorporated or not.

The fact is that a corporation may engage in religious actions and those incorporated for expressly religious purposes should have greater protections. Hobby Lobby sells arts and crafts, though, and I don't see why their religious views should entitle to them to exemption from the law.
Click to expand...

Its a privately held corporation.....just like the bakers that refused to bake a cake for a homo wedding.....yet one side wins the other doesn't.

and now Obama has MANDATED what business may or may not offer in their insurance to employees.....and this is constitutional ?....it gets more and more
convoluted every day....in the end, it just government over stepping their authority to force an agenda on the citizens and against our constitutional freedoms....
 
aeprga said:
Engaging in religious activities is different from having religious opinions/view/beliefs that are entitled to First Amendment protection.
Click to expand...

Religious opinions/views and beliefs is EXACTLY what we are entitled to under First Amendment protection. The gov. shall no law, etc. etc.....
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
The first amendment protects more than just opinions/views/beliefs.
Click to expand...


I understand that. My point is that corporations can engage in religious activities that are entitled to First Amendment protection, but they do not hold religious beliefs/views/opinions that are entitled to the same protection.
 
NOVA said:
Religious opinions/views and beliefs is EXACTLY what we are entitled to under First Amendment protection. The gov. shall no law, etc. etc.....
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. I'm simply of the opinion that corporations, as fictitious entities, cannot hold religious views/beliefs/opinions.
 
NOVA said:
Its a privately held corporation.....just like the bakers that refused to bake a cake for a homo wedding.....yet one side wins the other doesn't.

and now Obama has MANDATED what business may or may not offer in their insurance to employees.....and this is constitutional ?....it gets more and more
convoluted every day....in the end, it just government over stepping their authority to force an agenda on the citizens and against our constitutional freedoms....
Click to expand...

Whether the corporation is privately held or not has no bearing on the issue. Frankly, I don't see how whether it is a corporation, sole proprietorship or whatever has any bearing either.

There is nothing convoluted about it. The issue is not about whether Congress has proper authority to legislate on this issue. It's settled law that they do and supported by conservative douchebags like Scalia and Roberts. The issue is whether this violates Hobby Lobby's first amendment rights to the free exercise of religion.

The founders did not intend that every action of someone or some institution claiming a religion should be free from law. Insuring employees that sell arts and crafts is in now way connected to the free exercise of religion.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Hobby Lobby, an Oklahoma based company filed suit in federal court against the provision of the Affordable Care Act that requires large employers to provide insurance which includes contraception. The 10th circuit court ruled in favor of the Government but the appealate court for the 10th circuit court ruled that the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010 , which upheld a free-speech right for corporations, conferred a right to religious expression on businesses.

Now...not to get hung up on the contraception issue but this is another example of the unintended consequences of the Citizens United Decision.

I mean based on this decision by the appealate court and using Citizens United as precedent a corporation or business can disregard any federal law or regulation that violates their corporation or businesses religious beliefs.

Food for though, huh?

http://news.yahoo.com/democratic-se...hobby-lobby-birth-control-case-025129006.html
Click to expand...

Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
The court is not simply deciding that a company does not have to provide a certain benefit. The law says they do. One could possibly challenge whether Congress has such authority but it is pretty much settled law that they do under the interstate commerce clause and the law is not being challenged on those grounds. Your argument has nothing to with the particulars of this case.
Click to expand...

You may wish to re-read the OP.
 
aeprga said:
I understand that. My point is that corporations can engage in religious activities that are entitled to First Amendment protection, but they do not hold religious beliefs/views/opinions that are entitled to the same protection.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top