Page 5 of 169 FirstFirst 123456789101555105 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 3368

Thread: SCOTUS decisions

  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug View Post
    Other than to say I agree with the result, I'll be reserving comment until I've read the opinion.
    Fair. I'm just basing on the excerpts that Alito and Kennedy shared from the bench.

  2. #82
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    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.
    Can corporations speak? Can corporations sign contracts?

    Can a non-profit religious organization (say the YMCA) hold religious beliefs? You can't baptize the YMCA. A Catholic School has no soul. Do they also lack religious freedoms?

  3. #83
    I think there's a pretty solid distinction between for-profit corporations and entities and non-profits. At least policy-wise IMO.

  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by RChildress107 View Post
    Can corporations speak? Can corporations sign contracts?

    Can a non-profit religious organization (say the YMCA) hold religious beliefs? You can't baptize the YMCA. A Catholic School has no soul. Do they also lack religious freedoms?
    But more on this point, I think it depends on your series of questions what these organizations are seeking to do (if that makes sense).

  5. #85
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    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.
    Like all Supreme Court decisions the lower courts will sort it out. A list is more guidance than they often get. If the Supreme Court feels like the lower courts are being too strict or too liberal with their rulings they will take cert and set another precedent. This is how the system works.

    If this just interprets the RFRA, and leaves unanswered whether a corporation has free exercise rights under the first amendment, Congress could also simply change the law to prevent these types of exemptions.

  6. #86
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    The SC has legitimized discrimination against women. This is another radical decision by the worst SC since before Brown.

    I really hope the Clinton Court revisits the insane concept corporations as people.

  7. #87
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    But more on this point, I think it depends on your series of questions what these organizations are seeking to do (if that makes sense).
    Can a for-profit corporation hold any views or any purpose other than maximizing profits for shareholders?


    Policy-wise you might be correct. But it doesn't make sense to say the YMCA is a "person" under the RFRA (or 14th amendment) but not a for-profit corporation.

  8. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug View Post
    White? What does that have to do with anything?

    Is it impossible to discuss anything on its merits anymore?

    I'm looking forward to someone figuring out how to call supporters of this decision bigoted.
    It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it, really just the religious component that does.

    Decision is out: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...3-354_olp1.pdf

    The decision isn't bigoted, I just think the majority is grasping at straws for closely-held corporations to retain RFRA rights. Going to read the decision now to see how they explain it.

  9. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug View Post

    I'm looking forward to someone figuring out how to call supporters of this decision bigoted.
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    The SC has legitimized discrimination against women. .
    Ask and you shall receive

  10. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    The SC has legitimized discrimination against women. This is another radical decision by the worst SC since before Brown.

    I really hope the Clinton Court revisits the insane concept corporations as people.
    I disagree with everything in this post except the last sentence. This isn't a radical decision, it's just an interpretation of RFRA. Also the Court expressly stated that this doesn't not give carte blanche to discriminate.

  11. #91
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    It's only directed at healthcare for women. Not a single man is covered by this decision. Once again it's a bunch of old men telling women their healthcare options are not as protected as men.

  12. #92
    The Pumpfaker
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    The Peak, bitches
    Posts
    2,621
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug View Post

    I'm looking forward to someone figuring out how to call supporters of this decision bigoted.
    Not exactly bigoted, but if you're a catholic and oppose birth control, that's all well and good. You can not provide that for your employee. If you're a Jehovah's Witness, you still have to provide blood transfusions, because we said so. You're religious beliefs don't quite matter as much.

  13. #93
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    120,297
    Health coverage needs to be separated from employment.

  14. #94
    This is a great line from Alito re: the $2000 penalty for not providing insurance might actually be less than the cost of insuring each person for Hobby Lobby:

    "It ignores the fact that the plaintiffs have religious reasons for providing health-insurance coverage for their employees"

    And what might these religious reasons be Alito?!?! I suppose we'll have to see further in the decision if this is explicated further.

  15. #95
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    By the way, wait until you read Ginsburg's dissent. It's very nearly exactly what I posted earlier. She specifically says this is not narrow. But I guess you guys know more than she and three other Justices.

  16. #96
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    120,297
    Quote Originally Posted by Spot the Wonder View Post
    Not exactly bigoted, but if you're a catholic and oppose birth control, that's all well and good. You can not provide that for your employee. If you're a Jehovah's Witness, you still have to provide blood transfusions, because we said so. You're religious beliefs don't quite matter as much.
    Exactly. How is this not a move toward a government established religion when the Judicial Branch can designate which religious beliefs are legitimate?

  17. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by Junebug View Post
    What does this mean? If that's not clear, what I'm asking is why did you say this decision will be reversed when the "white" justices are gone? What does being white have anything to do with this decision?
    It doesn't have anything to do with the decision, I was just archetyping the 2014 religious person as an old white guy.

  18. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by Spot the Wonder View Post
    Not exactly bigoted, but if you're a catholic and oppose birth control, that's all well and good. You can not provide that for your employee. If you're a Jehovah's Witness, you still have to provide blood transfusions, because we said so. You're religious beliefs don't quite matter as much.
    Yep, "freedom of religion, predominantly just if you're a Christian though, otherwise we might just dismiss your beliefs as absurd and not entitled to coverage."

  19. #99
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    The SC has legitimized discrimination against women. This is another radical decision by the worst SC since before Brown.

    I really hope the Clinton Court revisits the insane concept corporations as people.
    Three members of the Warren Court that decided Brown (including the Chief Justice) also wrote this:

    "Some may think that one group or another should not express its views in an election because it is too powerful, because it advocates unpopular ideas, or because it has a record of lawless action. But these are not justifications for withholding First Amendment rights from any group—labor or corporate. First Amendment rights are part of the heritage of all persons and groups in this country. They are not to be dispensed or withheld merely because we or the Congress thinks the person or group is worthy or unworthy.

  20. #100
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Ginsburg says this decision opens the door to wider decisions. Like Spot says, "why is HL's religion OK but not Jehovah's Witness'?"

    This is up there with as bad a decision as CU and VRA.

    Well, it take at least a day for Texas to pass a poll tax and voter suppression law after the SC overturned VRA.

Posting Permissions

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