mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > Extra Stuff > Soap Box

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2014-07-18, 02:45   #1
kladner
 
kladner's Avatar
 
"Kieren"
Jul 2011
In My Own Galaxy!

5×1,997 Posts
Default Corporations as Persons, Money as Speech

The title is a very sore spot for me, of much longer standing than the Citizens United decision, much less Hobby Lobby. However, I will start off with a humorous approach.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	1197ckCOMIC-bible-stories-for-corporations.jpg
Views:	92
Size:	221.5 KB
ID:	11495  
kladner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-07-18, 02:49   #2
kladner
 
kladner's Avatar
 
"Kieren"
Jul 2011
In My Own Galaxy!

5×1,997 Posts
Default

.....and furthermore-
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Corporations_Bors.png
Views:	98
Size:	188.7 KB
ID:	11496  
kladner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-07-18, 08:50   #3
Brian-E
 
Brian-E's Avatar
 
"Brian"
Jul 2007
The Netherlands

63008 Posts
Default

Those cartoons are amusing!

I just want to make sure I've understood the essence of the Supreme Court decision. This is, if I have it right, that employers - as corporations - can appeal to their collective religious freedom to avoid having to provide certain potential requirements for their employees. In the specific case brought by Hobby Lobby, a retail company, the employers are not required to include abortion availability in the health insurance which they provide to their staff.

Does that sum it up fairly and completely, or what have I got wrong?

Last fiddled with by Brian-E on 2014-07-18 at 08:52
Brian-E is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-07-18, 09:16   #4
Zeta-Flux
 
Zeta-Flux's Avatar
 
May 2003

2·761 Posts
Default

I think your summary is fair, but here are some additional details which may be useful.

1. The ruling was narrowly tailored to "closely held" companies. (These are companies with very few owners--basically family businesses.)

2. The appeal to religious freedom in this case was a necessary, but not sufficient, indicator that their freedom was being unduly burdened. Another necessary component was that the government needed to act in the least restrictive way to accomplish its goals. The court rules that the mandate for support of abortive contraceptives (which, by the way, was not something passed by our politicians into law, but was just something one of Obama's committees decided on) was not the least restrictive way to accomplish the government's goals.
Zeta-Flux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-07-18, 09:26   #5
Zeta-Flux
 
Zeta-Flux's Avatar
 
May 2003

101111100102 Posts
Default

Kladner, I'm not familiar with the reasons people dislike the Citizen's United decision. It's probably that I don't understand the reasoning.

Is your argument that corporations cannot assert the rights of persons?

If that is the case, what would prevent government from having the power to stop news organizations (rather than non-incorporated individuals) from exercising the right of press?

Why should our individual rights stop when we incorporate (i.e. group together), and isn't it dangerous to give government the power to take away rights whenever they deem we have "incorporated"?
Zeta-Flux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-07-18, 09:28   #6
axn
 
axn's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

22×11×107 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian-E View Post
abortion availability
Contraception availability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux View Post
abortive contraceptives
The contraceptives under question are not abortifacents, no matter how sincerely anyone believes otherwise.
axn is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-07-18, 10:30   #7
Zeta-Flux
 
Zeta-Flux's Avatar
 
May 2003

2·761 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by axn View Post
The contraceptives under question are not abortifacents, no matter how sincerely anyone believes otherwise.
Thank you. I hadn't realized this, so googled around.

I thought this NPR article was very good: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013...on-studies-say

I also thought this chart was helpful: http://rachaelohalloran.hubpages.com...h#slide9084347

[Of course, I should point out that it hasn't always been the case that there was evidence plan B didn't prevent implantation. And some people differ about when science becomes settled on a subject. etc...]
Zeta-Flux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-07-18, 10:58   #8
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

26×113 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian-E View Post
Those cartoons are amusing!

I just want to make sure I've understood the essence of the Supreme Court decision. This is, if I have it right, that employers - as corporations - can appeal to their collective religious freedom to avoid having to provide certain potential requirements for their employees. In the specific case brought by Hobby Lobby, a retail company, the employers are not required to include abortion availability in the health insurance which they provide to their staff.

Does that sum it up fairly and completely, or what have I got wrong?
Contraceptives. This ruling specifically covered JUST contraceptives.
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-07-18, 11:09   #9
R.D. Silverman
 
R.D. Silverman's Avatar
 
Nov 2003

26·113 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman View Post
Contraceptives. This ruling specifically covered JUST contraceptives.
Although clearly impossible in today's political climate, we need a
constitutional amendement that clearly delineates religious rights.

It needs to address what happens when religious rights collide
with other rights. It needs to address the practice of religion during
events (public or private) that are paid for by public tax money.

The religious right likes to play the victim. Anytime they are told that
they can't do something they claim a "war" against their religion. As
if their rights are being oppressed. As a general principle, oppression is
something that can come ONLY from those with sufficient power.
Although not theoretically impossible, it is impossible in practice for a
minority to oppress the majority. In fact, I believe that social scientists
have a definition of "oppression" that conforms to this view.

There is no "war against religion". What does exist is that the minority
is PUSHING BACK against having other peoples' religion thrust upon them.

The amendement should (IMO) have a provision that says roughly "the right
to practice religion does not give one the right to cause harm to others"

Denying insurance converage for contraceptives because of one's
religious beliefs DOES cause harm to others. Economic harm.

Last fiddled with by R.D. Silverman on 2014-07-18 at 11:10 Reason: typo
R.D. Silverman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-07-18, 11:39   #10
Zeta-Flux
 
Zeta-Flux's Avatar
 
May 2003

27628 Posts
Default

Quote:
Denying insurance converage for contraceptives because of one's
religious beliefs DOES cause harm to others. Economic harm.
First, Hobby Lobby doesn't deny insurance coverage for contraceptives, just 4 of the 20 forms approved by the FDA. This will only affect people's wallets if (1) they work for Hobby Lobby, and (2) they are set on buying one of those 4 contraceptives instead of one of the other 16 options.

Second, my the measure of "economic harm" the government could strong-arm anyone into doing anything. There are economic consequences for everything we do. I am definitely not one to give them that much power.

Quote:
There is no "war against religion".
I agree (just as there is no "war on women"). But the Obama administration has taken some strange positions relative to religious freedom. Case in point: Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Zeta-Flux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2014-07-18, 11:47   #11
Brian-E
 
Brian-E's Avatar
 
"Brian"
Jul 2007
The Netherlands

26×3×17 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux View Post
First, Hobby Lobby doesn't deny insurance coverage for contraceptives, just 4 of the 20 forms approved by the FDA.
They're described on the main page of http://www.hobbylobbycase.com/ as "four potentially life-terminating drugs and devices in the company’s health insurance plan". It was reading that which caused me to think we were talking about abortions: thanks axn and RDS for the correction!

Last fiddled with by Brian-E on 2014-07-18 at 11:56 Reason: altered quotes to avoid possible misunderstanding about who I was quoting
Brian-E is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Free Speech Therapy kladner Soap Box 97 2015-07-09 15:09
How much money says... Dubslow Lounge 10 2012-07-08 18:52
Thoughts on President Bush's January 10 speech about Iraq cheesehead Soap Box 173 2008-07-12 22:24
Freedom of speech... Xyzzy Soap Box 1 2005-04-25 23:10
The Right of Free Speech Wacky Soap Box 2 2003-09-20 22:56

All times are UTC. The time now is 15:57.

Thu Oct 22 15:57:46 UTC 2020 up 42 days, 13:08, 1 user, load averages: 3.25, 5.21, 3.77

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.