Page 10 of 134 FirstFirst ... 567891011121314152060110 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 2675

Thread: SCOTUS decisions

  1. #181
    I don't understand the policy distinction between a closely-held corporation and other corporations. The Court punted on it, but I don't think it's enough to say that RFRA broadly includes "corporations" as "person(s)" and then say that it doesn't matter because a for-profit entity is unlikely to practically bring a claim.

  2. #182
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    You act like it's so easy for everyone to get a decent job. That's ridiculous.

    This decision goes along with CU in expanding the rights of corporations. It's ludicrous and dangerous.
    How is it ludicrous and dangerous?

    As has already been mentioned corporate personhood is a well established precedent and corporations are included in the word "person" by the Dictionary Act which the RFRA appears not to deviate from. ACA clearly imposes some burden on HL, and although it's debatable as to whether the burden is substantial it is not ludicrous to find that it is. It's also not ludicrous to conclude that the government's interest is not compelling or that it's means for reaching that interest aren't the least restrictive.

    It's also not that dangerous. As numbers pointed out it will most likely be limited to these factual circumstances (a closely held corporation being exempt from providing four types of abortion-inducing contraception) and not lead to the end of the world scenarios you seem to think it will.

  3. #183
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    People working at Hobby Lobby probably don't just have jobs lined up where they can afford to jump ship. Either way it seems the government will cover these types of contraceptives correct?
    Yes, almost certainly

  4. #184
    So do we have any other scenarios yet where this case can be applied or is this all still in hypothetical RJ world?

  5. #185
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    69,242
    Here's some on Ginsberg's dissent:

    On Monday, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg penned a blistering dissent to the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling that the government can't require certain employers to provide insurance coverage for methods of birth control and emergency contraception that conflict with their religious beliefs. Ginsburg wrote that her five male colleagues, "in a decision of startling breadth," would allow corporations to opt out of almost any law that they find "incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs."

    Here are seven more key quotes from Ginsburg's dissent in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby:

    "The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers' beliefs access to contraceptive coverage"

    "Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."

    "Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby's or Conestoga's plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman's autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults."

    "It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month's full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage."

    "Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."

    "Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."

    "The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."

    But to some of you it's just RJ....oh yeah and four members of the Supreme Court.

  6. #186
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    69,242
    Quote Originally Posted by RChildress107 View Post
    How is it ludicrous and dangerous?

    As has already been mentioned corporate personhood is a well established precedent and corporations are included in the word "person" by the Dictionary Act which the RFRA appears not to deviate from. ACA clearly imposes some burden on HL, and although it's debatable as to whether the burden is substantial it is not ludicrous to find that it is. It's also not ludicrous to conclude that the government's interest is not compelling or that it's means for reaching that interest aren't the least restrictive.

    It's also not that dangerous. As numbers pointed out it will most likely be limited to these factual circumstances (a closely held corporation being exempt from providing four types of abortion-inducing contraception) and not lead to the end of the world scenarios you seem to think it will.
    Not just me fur Justices on the Supreme Court and millions of other Americans.

  7. #187
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    You act like it's so easy for everyone to get a decent job. That's ridiculous.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, rj, but isn't your argument against right to work statues that if people aren't willing to pay union dues, they shouldn't work in union shops? Union jobs pay better and have better benefits than HL, but neither are Google. As numbers has pointed out, even HL employees won't be precluded from using certain forms of birth control without expense.

  8. #188
    I do actually agree with this part:

    ""Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."

    It will all have to be litigated at some point at what I would imagine to be a relatively large expense. The cases though are only going to come from closely-held corporations with objections to certain exemptions. Beyond that I can't think of anything it would cover.

    ""The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."

    I pretty much agree that it's ventured into an area where there could be a lot of forthcoming litigation.

  9. #189
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    69,242
    No one should get union pay and union benefits in a union company without paying the dues. It's mind-boggling that anyone would they should be excluded. They get the benefits. They should have to pay for them.

    Healthcare is not the same. There are certain coverages that need to be included to keep costs down. Paying for birth-control is savings for health insurance and for the employer. This case was not about savings. It was about an extremist view of religion and corporation.

    Since closely held corporations are people, you should be able to sue the corporation and the individual shareholders. There should be no corporate veil if there isn't one on religion and other areas.

  10. #190
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    69,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    I do actually agree with this part:

    ""Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."

    It will all have to be litigated at some point at what I would imagine to be a relatively large expense. The cases though are only going to come from closely-held corporations with objections to certain exemptions. Beyond that I can't think of anything it would cover.

    ""The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."

    I pretty much agree that it's ventured into an area where there could be a lot of forthcoming litigation.
    Which is exactly what I've said and been getting shit about.

    The door is now open.

  11. #191
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    Not just me fur Justices on the Supreme Court and millions of other Americans.
    All the dissent said was that the majority did not give much guidance to hypothetical religious objections to other medical procedures which are required to be covered.

    I'm not sure it would be the end of the world if all of the closely held Jehovah's Witnesses corporations obtained an exemption to not provide coverage for blood transfusions. It's common practice for the dissent to accuse the majority of being overbroad. That doesn't mean it's necessarily the case.

    Theoretically this holding would be much more likely to be extended to publicly held corporations than it would to other types of religious exceptions. Practically I think the majority is probably right that such challenges are unlikely and certainly won't extend to "legions of women".

  12. #192
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    No one should get union pay and union benefits in a union company without paying the due. It's mind-boggling that anyone would they should be excluded. They get the benefits. They should have to pay for them.

    Healthcare is not the same. There are certain coverages that need to be included to keep costs down. Paying for birth-control is savings for health insurance and for the employer. This case was not about savings. It was about an extremist view of religion and corporation.

    Since closely held corporations are people, you should be able to sue the corporation and the individual shareholders. There should be no corporate veil if there isn't one on religion and other areas.
    Absolutely agree with the first paragraph. The problem with your second paragraph is that the government offered wide spread exemptions already for non-profits so that's a tough argument to legitimately make, not to mention that it's not really a constitutional argument.

    I do relatively agree with your last paragraph, people get the financial benefits of the corporation while also retaining all the abilities to cite personal liberties.

  13. #193
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    Which is exactly what I've said and been getting shit about.

    The door is now open.
    Yeah but the door is only open for exemption challenges, it's absolutely not open for racial or sex discrimination to be overt and allowable.

  14. #194
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    69,242
    There you go again. I never said anything like "end of the world". I said disasterous and several Justices agree.

  15. #195
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    69,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    Yeah but the door is only open for exemption challenges, it's absolutely not open for racial or sex discrimination to be overt and allowable.
    I never said this case had anything to do with race. The only thing I said about Brown was the same excuses were used before that decision and had been considered valid for hundreds of years. I never said this case was about race. To say I did is total BS.

  16. #196
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    I never said this case had anything to do with race. The only thing I said about Brown was the same excuses were used before that decision and had been considered valid for hundreds of years. I never said this case was about race. To say I did is total BS.
    Okay, it also doesn't have anything to do with discriminating against single women or gay people.

  17. #197
    Historically Competitive
    Wrangor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Mississippi Delta
    Posts
    12,412
    Quote Originally Posted by RChildress107 View Post
    And you think this is a good thing?
    It's just reality. 250 years of reality. We can certainly change course but let's not act like this some new occurrence by the religious right.

  18. #198
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    Which is exactly what I've said and been getting shit about.

    The door is now open.
    Actually this is exactly what you said:

    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    It would allow any company to cut off all insurance by simply saying, "My religion precludes me from paying for it."

    How could you stop any company from saying they have a Christian Scientist CEO who thinks God will cure you?

    What stops any company from cherry-picking other parts of policy.

    Further, if you can use religion to deny certain aspects of healthcare, why can't you use religion to deny service to gay people? Or single women?
    The bold is the only part that is even remotely accurate. There are several things that will stop your concern over cherry-picking.

    1st: the company must have a sincerely held religious belief that is being infringed upon. As the majority pointed out it would be difficult for large, publicly held corporations to establish a sincere belief. It also prevents company's that are trying to use the religious exception to save money on insurance. The court would consider evidence of sincerity, it doesn't just take the company's word for it.

    2nd: the Court could decide that the government's interest in requiring certain portions of the ACA is compelling and that an exemption would negate that interest.

  19. #199
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    69,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    Okay, it also doesn't have anything to do with discriminating against single women or gay people.
    I never said it had anything to do with gay people either. Where the fuck did you get that?


    I said women not single women. It does discriminate against them. The BC they are taking away is only about women.

    What happens if HL next says, "It's against our religion to give women maternity leave." Or "Our religion considers women who have children out of wedlock is immoral. Therefore, they can't work for us."

    There is no way around this is another extremist decision that opens the door many other extremist cases. Don't take my word for it. Look at Justices on the Supreme Court.

  20. #200
    To think that the justices of the Supreme Court give a fuck about the denomination of the religion at hand in this case is pretty funny.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •