Page 4 of 169 FirstFirst 1234567891454104 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 3368

Thread: SCOTUS decisions

  1. #61
    Just read up on the Hobby Lobby case. I bet it comes out 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby, restricted solely to companies who are singularly owned by an individual or family.

    I still don't think a corporation has any personhood though. Individuals have freedom of religion, if you want to exercise that right then go ahead, but don't then claim your legally created entity (the corporation) also has freedom of religion. The corporation cannot think or pray. If you are going to have a corporation and provide insurance then you have to play by the rules.

  2. #62
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    A corporation can't vote. It can't be jailed. It's pure lunacy to say a corporation is a person.

  3. #63
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    A corporation can't vote. It can't be jailed. It's pure lunacy to say a corporation is a person.
    it's also a concept that has a 200 year history in American jurisprudence. Corporations have enjoyed protections as persons under the 14th Amendment to some degree since around 1890.

  4. #64
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    And segregation in schools was protected until Brown.

  5. #65

    SCOTUS decisions

    I'm with RJ on this one. Corporations cannot hold any religious beliefs - sincerely held or not. The individual person retains their RFRA rights, a corporation IMO does not. I agree it can be murky if it's a single family employer but this is the family's religion not the corporation's.
    Last edited by Wakeforest22890; 06-30-2014 at 07:45 AM.

  6. #66
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    I'm with RJ on this one. Corporations cannot hold any religious beliefs - sincerely held or not. The individual person retains their RFRA rights, a corporation IMO does not. I agree it can be murky if it's a single family employer but this is the family's religion not the corporation's.
    That might be correct, but that's different than saying that 200 years worth of Supreme Court Justices have been insane, or comparing the concept of corporate personhood to Jim Crow.

    Can groups of people that aren't incorporated hold religious beliefs as a group?

    Does a corporation have any first amendment rights? If so which ones?

    Can the government pass a law preventing corporations from mandating prayer before meetings, or having a chapel on the premises? What part of the constitution or current law would prevent such a law if not the 1st amendment or the RFRA?

    I think this one will come down to Roberts and Kennedy. Even if it comes down in Hobby Lobby's favor I would expect Roberts to write the opinion and limit the holding as much as possible. I'd also expect him to remain silent on the constitutional issue.

    If it comes down against Hobby Lobby I don't think the Court will go as far as stating that corporations have NO religious rights (in oral arguments Kagan expressed doubts that for-profit corporations simply lack religious rights altogether. I'd imagine either Kennedy or Roberts would insist on leaving that open before agreeing to join the 4 liberal justices).

  7. #67
    The King of Kong Billy Mitchell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fun Spot, USA
    Posts
    1,159
    They granted cert this morning in WildTangent v. Ultramerical, which hopefully will help end patent trolling.

  8. #68
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Alito is writing the decision. I'm hopeful the justices that join him have convinced him to show some restraint. He was the justice most clearly against the gov't in oral arguments.

  9. #69
    The King of Kong Billy Mitchell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fun Spot, USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Harris v. Quinn - The Court recognizes a category of "partial public employees" that cannot be required to contribute union bargaining fees. Very limited ruling.

  10. #70
    The Pumpfaker
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    The Peak, bitches
    Posts
    2,621
    Quote Originally Posted by RChildress107 View Post
    Does a corporation have any first amendment rights? If so which ones?
    Does a corporation have an immortal soul? Isn't that the basis of religious faith?

  11. #71
    From the scotus blog:

    Here is more qualification: It does not provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.by Amy Howe 10:19 AM Comment (0)

    Here is a further attempt at qualification: This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs.by Amy Howe 10:18 AM Comment (0)

    Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion says that the government could pay for the coverage itself, so that women receive it.by tgoldstein 10:18 AM Comment (0)

    The Court says that the government has failed to show that the mandate is the least restrictive means of advancing its interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to birth control.by Amy Howe 10:17 AM Comment (0)

    RFRA applies to regulations that govern the activities of closely held for-profit corporations like Conestoga, HL and Mardel.by Amy Howe 10:17 AM Comment (0)

    Closely held corporations cannot be required to provide contraception coverage.by tgoldstein 10:17 AM Comment (0) -

  12. #72
    The Pumpfaker
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    The Peak, bitches
    Posts
    2,621
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug View Post
    Belief in an immortal soul is not a prerequisite for a belief system to be classified as "religion" under the first amendment.
    A corporation has a belief system?

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    Just read up on the Hobby Lobby case. I bet it comes out 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby, restricted solely to companies who are singularly owned by an individual or family.
    nice call

  14. #74
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Spot the Wonder View Post
    Does a corporation have an immortal soul? Isn't that the basis of religious faith?
    No and No

  15. #75
    Ridiculous. Corporations are legal fiction who cannot hold religious beliefs. You can't baptize a corporation. This is an absurd decision. RFRA clearly does not cover corporations - even closely held - as people.

  16. #76
    OGBoards Chaplain
    RevDeac06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Salisbury, NC
    Posts
    2,601
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    You can't baptize a corporation.
    Challenge accepted!

  17. #77
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by deac29 View Post
    From the scotus blog:

    Here is more qualification: It does not provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice.by Amy Howe 10:19 AM Comment (0)

    Here is a further attempt at qualification: This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs.by Amy Howe 10:18 AM Comment (0)

    Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion says that the government could pay for the coverage itself, so that women receive it.by tgoldstein 10:18 AM Comment (0)

    The Court says that the government has failed to show that the mandate is the least restrictive means of advancing its interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to birth control.by Amy Howe 10:17 AM Comment (0)

    RFRA applies to regulations that govern the activities of closely held for-profit corporations like Conestoga, HL and Mardel.by Amy Howe 10:17 AM Comment (0)

    Closely held corporations cannot be required to provide contraception coverage.by tgoldstein 10:17 AM Comment (0) -
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    If HL wins, what's to stop a company that is owned or run by a Quaker from not paying taxes? After all it's their religious principles prohibit Quakers from participating in war. Or maybe they deduct the percentage that goes to the DOD.
    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?
    Nailed it.

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug View Post
    Dance much?

    No, but an individual (or small group of individuals) running a closely held corporation does.
    Sure and their personal religious freedom is not being violated. They can still believe what they want, the corporation on the they hand - generally created to distance itself from individual liability on the individual's behalf does not. People get all the benefits of distancing themselves from an enterprise while retaining religious rights with that corporation? It's total bullshit.

  19. #79
    The King of Kong Billy Mitchell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fun Spot, USA
    Posts
    1,159
    Looks like they got a little catty:

    Ginsburg's dissent calls the majority opinion a "decision of startling breadth."

    Justice Kennedy write to respond, in part, to Ginsburg's characterization of the majority opinion, saying that it "does not have the breadth and sweep ascribed to it by the respectful and powerful dissent."

  20. #80
    So what is the litmus test for what employers may opt out of if they are a closely-held corporation? It's solely limited to contraceptive coverage? The Court lists things that won't qualify under this decision but it's obviously not exhaustive so are we going to litigate this every single time a small business decides to invoke religious freedom?

    I think this decision sucks and I think it's going to be overruled in about thirty years when the old white people clinging to their religion leave the court.

Posting Permissions

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