Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Do Corporations 'Believe'?Follow

#27 Mar 24 2014 at 6:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
That's not the point. The question is whether the owner's rights extend to the businesses they run. I believe they do/should.

They don't. They shouldn't. Not an open question, and a mindbogglingly idiotic idea. You are quite possibly literally the only person who understands what this means who believes it. Wait, that's generous. If you actually understand what you're stating, you're likely the only one who thinks so. That "corporations are people" thing was a narrow ruling about free speech. Perhaps you misunderstood. If corporations want the rights of individuals, that's fine, they don't have to incorporate. The benefits of incorporating are almost entirely viewed in law as trading liability for increased regulatory oversight. Go sell your Hobby Lobby junk by yourself on the side of the road, pay your taxes and pray for all the unplanned children you like. When you decide to employ people and shield your person from liability via law, you surrender some of your personal rights. Not without consent or foreknowledge, of course.

For profit concerns don't get religious protection under law. If they want to re-file as a 501c, then they can ******** to their women employees under law. They just can't make any money at it. They'll lose this case 6-3 (Scalia Thomas and Alito dissent)
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#28 Mar 25 2014 at 7:32 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
It's pretty idiotic that an entity that doesn't even pay taxes gets to have a voice in how the money is used.

Oh, and religion too.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#29 Mar 25 2014 at 2:14 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Well, if we pass a law making those things illegal, then they will!

Then it might be a legitimate point. You'd make more sense arguing that businesses should be allowed to ignore other existing laws on religious grounds rather than making up nonexistent scenarios.


Huh? The argument is that the government shouldn't be able to pass laws like that in the first place. It's not about ignoring laws, but whether those laws themselves represent an unfair and even unconstitutional infringement on people's rights. So countering that with "well, it's the law, so you have to comply" is a really really really stupid answer.

Quote:
Quote:
We have a court which gets to decide if that law is unfair and/or infringes on our rights. Good thing, right?

Unless they rule the way we don't like, then we stomp our feet and say they got it wrong or that it doesn't really count Smiley: laugh


Debating whether we think the court got it right on any given case isn't the same as pretending that the court doesn't exist at all. Which is more or less what you're doing here. You're pretending that the argument is about whether religious people or groups have some special power which allows them to ignore existing laws, when the actual argument is about whether the law in question infringes on our rights.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#30 Mar 25 2014 at 2:22 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
when the actual argument is about whether the law in question infringes on our rights.
And by "our rights" you mean white Christian heterosexual males.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#31 Mar 25 2014 at 2:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Debating whether we think the court got it right on any given case isn't the same as pretending that the court doesn't exist at all. Which is more or less what you're doing here. You're pretending that the argument is about whether religious people or groups have some special power which allows them to ignore existing laws, when the actual argument is about whether the law in question infringes on our rights.

Wait. Are you implying that religious people DON'T have some special power over US law? Because the 1st amendment bit is a cornerstone of the brief here. What the **** am I doing, never mind, carry on. You're right, the argument is about whether the law in question infringes on our rights, the religious bit is completely irrelevant. An argument that they just don't feel like doing something would be equally valid. Because freedom of freedom and murica **** yeah.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#32gbaji, Posted: Mar 25 2014 at 2:52 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I disagree. You're creating an all-or-nothing scenario. I think there's certain extra protections that 501c orgs get, but that's not the same as saying that everyone else loses all religious protections and rights if they aren't a 501c. That's not what the status should mean.
#33 Mar 25 2014 at 3:03 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
when the actual argument is about whether the law in question infringes on our rights.
And by "our rights" you mean white Christian heterosexual males.


No. Any rights. You get that every time a corporation makes any business decision, that is an exercise of the rights of those who control the corporation, right? We exercise rights every day. When you decide what to eat for lunch, you're exercising your right to choose what to eat. When a business decides what products to make, whether to hire more workers or invest profits in some other way, and yes, what benefits to provide to its employees, this represents an exercise of rights by the owners.


The question should be: Why should it be ok to infringe those rights when it comes to what kinds of health benefits they provide to their employees. Honestly, this shouldn't even be about religious speech at all. It should be unconstitutional from the start. Sadly, the court made a monumental mistake with the previous ruling, so we now have to address each and every stupid little effect of that mistake. One of which is asking "well, what about owners of businesses who would have to violate their religious beliefs to comply with the mandate". It's "stupid" because if we just didn't infringe people's freedoms in this way in the first place, we wouldn't even have to ask this question. By default you ought to have the freedom to decide what benefits, if any, you offer to your employees. Period. End of story.

So no, it's not really just about religious freedom. I'm not arguing that religious people should have special protections. Really. Everyone should have those same protections. The hope here is that if enough different cases come along, the court will eventually realize its mistake and the complete infeasibility of the rearlier ruling and come back to their senses on this issue and reverse that previous ruling. If there are enough "ok. but what about this..." cases, they may realize there's no way to apply the law without creating a massive CF of rights violations.

That's the objective here. If "what about religious speech" is one of the methods to achieve it, then so be it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#34 Mar 25 2014 at 3:05 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
No. Any rights.
Right, any rights of white Christian heterosexual males.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#35 Mar 25 2014 at 3:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Huh? The argument is that the government shouldn't be able to pass laws like that in the first place.

Of course they should. It's the job of the legislature to pass laws with a majority support. It's the job of the judiciary to determine if those laws are constitutional. Obviously it behooves the legislature not to waste their time passing obviously unconstitutional laws they don't think will pass muster but that wasn't the case here.

[edit: I realize that this is a simplification and you're going to completely miss the point here but that's fine]

Quote:
Debating whether we think the court got it right on any given case isn't the same as pretending that the court doesn't exist at all. Which is more or less what you're doing here.

Well, no. But it seems a waste of my time to belabor the point if that's what you took from it.

Edited, Mar 25th 2014 4:48pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#36 Mar 25 2014 at 4:11 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Given that you're parroting the strawman version of the ruling, it seems like you're the one who misunderstood it. The ruling was not "Corporations are people", but that that corporations are an extension of those who own/control them, and to restrict corporations from engaging in political speech would represent an infringement of the rights of those owners. Only the most absurd misinterpretation of the ruling could cause some one to think that a non-person gained rights in that ruling

Right, only an abject moron would think corporations were entitled to the same protections under law that individuals are. Glad you had this moment of clarity. You're welcome. Also, I know you're as slow as they come, but when I go out of my way to put these symbols "" around a phrase and also add the word 'thing' following that phrase, it's often an indication that I'm not advocating that phrase be taken at face value. For instance, the "welfare hurts the long term prospects of the poor" thing is about the moral hazard of entitlement programs. See how I can refer to it without advocating the position? Fucking amazing, isn't it?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#37 Mar 25 2014 at 4:15 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
No. Any rights.
Right, any rights of white Christian heterosexual males.


Sure. Because only white Christian males own businesses. Got it!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#38 Mar 25 2014 at 4:19 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Because only white Christian males own businesses.
Just the ones you acknowledge.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#39 Mar 25 2014 at 4:26 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Given that you're parroting the strawman version of the ruling, it seems like you're the one who misunderstood it. The ruling was not "Corporations are people", but that that corporations are an extension of those who own/control them, and to restrict corporations from engaging in political speech would represent an infringement of the rights of those owners. Only the most absurd misinterpretation of the ruling could cause some one to think that a non-person gained rights in that ruling

Right, only an abject moron would think corporations were entitled to the same protections under law that individuals are.


And once again, you changed the words. Only an abject moron would believe that corporations are people. See how that's not the same as what you just said?

The ruling that free speech rights apply to actions and funds held by corporations wasn't a ruling that corporations were people. It was a ruling that the rights of those who owned a controlling interest in those corporations did not cease to exist with regard to the use of the corporations themselves. Put another way, a persons right to use their property to express political speech applies to property which is in the form of a corporation. That's it. That's the ruling. And yeah, that ruling gives a strong precedent that religious speech should be protected as well. Because it's not the speech of the corporation, but the people who control the corporation.


And this is a particularly strong case because the corporation in question is not publicly traded. It's wholly owned by one family. So there isn't even the question of whether those using the corporation to engage in the speech are accurately representing the whole of the "owners". In this case, it really is a matter of whether the Greens can be forced to use property they own in a way which violates their religious beliefs. I don't think any component of the corporation process assumes this. Corporations protect the owners from certain liability issues, but nothing suggests that the owners have to suffer a loss of control over what the corporation does as a consequence of that. It's a financial arrangement, nothing more.

Again, the owners of the corporation don't lose control over any other aspect of the use of corporate assets, so why this one?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 Mar 25 2014 at 5:47 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
And this is a particularly strong case because the corporation in question is not publicly traded. It's wholly owned by one family. So there isn't even the question of whether those using the corporation to engage in the speech are accurately representing the whole of the "owners". In this case, it really is a matter of whether the Greens can be forced to use property they own in a way which violates their religious beliefs. I don't think any component of the corporation process assumes this. Corporations protect the owners from certain liability issues, but nothing suggests that the owners have to suffer a loss of control over what the corporation does as a consequence of that. It's a financial arrangement, nothing more.

Today I learned you don't understand what corporations are. Today YOU learned...just kidding, that stopped a LONG time ago, didn't it?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#41 Mar 25 2014 at 6:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
This really isn't a hard concept.

Employers aren't required to pay for anything they don't want to pay for.

They ARE required to pay for things they don't want to pay for if they decide to have employees. Like wages, and benefits, etc.

That's it. That's the entire point. You think some aspect of being an employer in our society violates your religious beliefs? Don't be an employer.

You don't get to use your religious beliefs to pick and choose which legal protections you do and don't want to follow. If you're going to employ workers, you owe them at least minimum wage, safe working conditions, etc. If you're going to employ full time workers, you owe them benefits as well.

At literally NO point are you forced to pay out for anything you don't want to pay out for.

Once again, a very basic point completely eludes the conservative right - you're confusing religious persecution with not getting everything you want.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#42gbaji, Posted: Mar 25 2014 at 6:21 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) And today I learned that when you don't have a good answer you just pretend that the other guy is wrong in some undefined way. Oh wait! I've known that for years. Notice how you didn't actually say I was wrong, or what you think I said that was wrong. But that's how you roll.
#43 Mar 25 2014 at 6:27 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Notice how you didn't actually say I was wrong,
Yeah, he was real subtle about it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#44 Mar 25 2014 at 6:42 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
idiggory the Fussy wrote:
This really isn't a hard concept.


No. It's not.

Quote:
Employers aren't required to pay for anything they don't want to pay for.


Correct. This is the default condition barring a law stating otherwise. Cause, you know... freedom!

Quote:
They ARE required to pay for things they don't want to pay for if they decide to have employees. Like wages, and benefits, etc.


Incorrect. Until the passage of the ACA, only wages were required (minimum wage laws). Participation in things like payroll taxes, unemployment funds, etc were in there as well (but I'm assuming we can broadly lump that in with "wages"). But benefits were just that: Benefits. There were some regulations regarding "if you provide health care, you must include an HMO option", but at no point was anything remotely resembling the kinds of mandates that are in the ACA present.

What is so strange about this is that the whole point of the ACA is that it mandates both that employers must provided health insurance to their employees *and* it mandates what that insurance must provide. It's the cornerstone of the whole law. Yet, for some bizarre reason, it's like pulling teeth to get people to acknowledge that this is "new". Prior to this law, we did not require that employers provide any health care at all, and certainly didn't mandate what that health insurance had to cover. So it's not a given that employers must provide health benefits. That's the "new thing" that we're addressing, and the whole point of the case.

Quote:
That's it. That's the entire point. You think some aspect of being an employer in our society violates your religious beliefs? Don't be an employer.


Wrong. Prior to the ACA, an employer was not required by law to provide contraceptives to their employees. Now they are. Surely you can see how this puts employers with a religious prohibition against contraceptive use in a bit of a bind.

And no, the correct answer is don't pass laws which mandate that employers must do things that violate their religious beliefs. Placing the onus on "being an employer" is wrong. Because by doing so you're basically creating a law which bars a whole set of religious people from having the right to run a business with any employees. Surely you can see how this might just be a bit of an infringement on religious freedom, right?

Quote:
You don't get to use your religious beliefs to pick and choose which legal protections you do and don't want to follow. If you're going to employ workers, you owe them at least minimum wage, safe working conditions, etc. If you're going to employ full time workers, you owe them benefits as well.


Benefits? No. You don't. They're called benefits for a reason. Why do you think this? It's arbitrary? Why not all workers? Why just full time? You're inventing requirements based on the law you're defending, not arguing for why the law should be that way in the first place.

Quote:
At literally NO point are you forced to pay out for anything you don't want to pay out for.


Huh? Of course you are. What do you think we're talking about?

Quote:
Once again, a very basic point completely eludes the conservative right - you're confusing religious persecution with not getting everything you want.


Seriously? I'm sure there's a huge gap between "getting everything I want" and "being forced to do something I don't want to". This law falls heavily into the latter category. I don't think it's unreasonable for the employer to decide what benefits, if any, he wishes to provide to his employees. And I'll point out again that it's frankly ridiculous that we even have to defend this right on some kind of religious grounds. It should be a right that all people have just because it's their property and the government shouldn't be able to force them to spend it in ways they don't want to. But now that the court has foolishly ruled otherwise, it's opened a Pandora's box of problems as a result. This is just one of a ton of different cases coming their way as a result.

Edited, Mar 25th 2014 5:47pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#45gbaji, Posted: Mar 25 2014 at 6:44 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Subtle isn't the point. He didn't say I was wrong. Period.
#46 Mar 25 2014 at 7:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Muggle@#%^er
******
20,024 posts
Yo, dumbass, just because law changes doesn't mean the concept does.

Yes, NOW employers are required to provide certain services they weren't ten years ago. They're also not allowed to use child laborers like they once would have. Before minimum wage they could pay whatever they wanted, now there's a minimum, etc.

You don't like it? DON'T EMPLOY PEOPLE.

The basis of these laws is the fact that you are not entitled to so fully dominate a person's life without providing a certain level of return for their labor. It started out with safety conditions, progressed through things like minimum wage and religious practice protections, harassment protections, etc. That now includes health insurance for certain individuals.

Why? Because we live in a society that places a certain level of expectation on individuals with regards to meeting their own needs and we understand that the employee-employer relationship is an unbalanced one strongly in favor of the employer and, therefore, we must ensure that employees reach a requisite return for their time investment asked for by a company (as all work is done by the company's discretion). You can't take 40 hours of work from someone per week and provide them so little they have no hope of meeting a minimum threshold for quality of life, a threshold we set VERY low all things considered. Essentially, it's ensuring that employees are legally protected so as to not be treated as slaves or indentured servants, which is incompatible with the constitution.

Don't like it? Don't employ people.

Quote:
I don't think it's unreasonable for the employer to decide what benefits, if any, he wishes to provide to his employees.


This is a completely separate issue. COMPLETELY. If you think that the free market should decide all employee/employer relations, fine. You're a dumbass, but fine.

That doesn't change anything about this situation. Wanting the free market to be the deciding factor has literally no implication for the state of reality as it exists. Right now we have a system that ensures a base level of care for employees IF their employer wants to command a requisite amount of their time.

That's not religious persecution. It's a choice you make. Employees have rights as employees, and you have a legal obligation to respect those rights. But you ONLY have that legal obligation if you CHOOSE to have employees. Decide if you want them or not. Use your religious beliefs if that makes you happy. But if your religious beliefs return a negative, it's not persecution. It just means your religious beliefs are incompatible with being an employer in our system.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#47 Mar 25 2014 at 7:09 PM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
They ARE required to pay for things they don't want to pay for if they decide to have employees. Like wages, and benefits, etc.


Incorrect. Until the passage of the ACA, only wages were required (minimum wage laws). Participation in things like payroll taxes, unemployment funds, etc were in there as well (but I'm assuming we can broadly lump that in with "wages"). But benefits were just that: Benefits. There were some regulations regarding "if you provide health care, you must include an HMO option", but at no point was anything remotely resembling the kinds of mandates that are in the ACA present.
And ACA has been passed a while ago so now healthcare isn't a benefit anymore but in the same group as minimum wage and safe working conditions.
#48 Mar 25 2014 at 7:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Minimum wage goes against my religious beliefs.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#49 Mar 25 2014 at 7:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
They ARE required to pay for things they don't want to pay for if they decide to have employees. Like wages, and benefits, etc.


Incorrect. Until the passage of the ACA, only wages were required (minimum wage laws). Participation in things like payroll taxes, unemployment funds, etc were in there as well (but I'm assuming we can broadly lump that in with "wages"). But benefits were just that: Benefits. There were some regulations regarding "if you provide health care, you must include an HMO option", but at no point was anything remotely resembling the kinds of mandates that are in the ACA present.
And ACA has been passed a while ago so now healthcare isn't a benefit anymore but in the same group as minimum wage and safe working conditions.


And this is one of the first challenges to go to the Supreme Court. I'm unsure what your point is. New law is passed. It often takes a few years for cases challenging that new law to rise to the highest court. We don't toss out those cases because of how long the law has been on the books. Hell, the Texas law challenged in Roe v. Wade had been on the book for something close to 100 years when that case came before the Court.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#50gbaji, Posted: Mar 25 2014 at 7:56 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) OMFG! You seriously can't see how this is a massive violation of religious freedom? You're actually ok with a law that basically says "abandon your religious beliefs if you want to own a business in this country". That's nuts. Totally nuts.
#51 Mar 25 2014 at 8:28 PM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
So if tomorrow we pass a law requiring that every employer must provide bible study courses to their employees
Would it hurt you to come up with a hypothetical that is, in some way, I don't know, plausible maybe?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 347 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (347)