USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
- Thread starter unofan
- Start date
- Status
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
I am founding my own religion/corporation/person. My religion says it is immoral to pay income, property, sales or any other tax. Our God is insistent on that fact.
I am founding my own religion/corporation/person. My religion says it is immoral to pay income, property, sales or any other tax. Our God is insistent on that fact.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
It appears the Court decided that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies not only to non-profits, but also closely held for profit corporations? Sounds like a long opinion with some pretty scathing dissents. Probably fun to read.
It appears the Court decided that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act applies not only to non-profits, but also closely held for profit corporations? Sounds like a long opinion with some pretty scathing dissents. Probably fun to read.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
What case is that? I thought that the ruling today was whether the owners of closely-held companies had the right not to be forced to act against their religious beliefs? There is nothing in that case at all about the owners of a company dictating anything to his employees, nothing at all. The owner of the company even agreed to pay for contraceptives for his employees. What is so objectionable about that?
What case is that? I thought that the ruling today was whether the owners of closely-held companies had the right not to be forced to act against their religious beliefs? There is nothing in that case at all about the owners of a company dictating anything to his employees, nothing at all. The owner of the company even agreed to pay for contraceptives for his employees. What is so objectionable about that?
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
You are correct. It's just Lynah being Lynah. Anything to do with religion he gets all bent about.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
How does a corporation have religious beliefs?
Follow up: Does it also have a soul? A conscience? Does it go to heaven? Hell? Inquiring minds want to know!
How does a corporation have religious beliefs?
Follow up: Does it also have a soul? A conscience? Does it go to heaven? Hell? Inquiring minds want to know!
Last edited:
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Most states will say you vote on it. Same way you decide other corporate action.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
I think people tend to blow the impact of these court cases way out of proportion, but what essentually has now happened is every instance of an employer raising a religious exemption just became a court case. Keeps the SCOTUS busy I suppose, but this has also maginalized the mostly Southern part of the country from everywhere else as companies providing contraception has strong support amongst voters. Not sure how you run nationally on an anti-contraception platform (which supporting this decision will be viewed as).
I think people tend to blow the impact of these court cases way out of proportion, but what essentually has now happened is every instance of an employer raising a religious exemption just became a court case. Keeps the SCOTUS busy I suppose, but this has also maginalized the mostly Southern part of the country from everywhere else as companies providing contraception has strong support amongst voters. Not sure how you run nationally on an anti-contraception platform (which supporting this decision will be viewed as).
First, the decision only applies to closely held corporations, not behemoths like GM.
Remember, this case was that Hobby objected to providing abortificants to its employees. Hobby provides birth control.
When the Catholic Church comes before the bench, it will be for the whole spectrum. I think they'll also prevail.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Well, you might start by actually reading what was written!
In a very narrowly-limiting ruling, the OWNERS of CLOSELY-HELD companies had their First Amendment right affirmed today: the government cannot compel the OWNERS of a CLOSELY-HELD COMPANY to act contrary to their religious beliefs.
Nothing whatsoever to do with "corporations" at all in that sentence, Mr. Inquiring Mind.
Well, you might start by actually reading what was written!
In a very narrowly-limiting ruling, the OWNERS of CLOSELY-HELD companies had their First Amendment right affirmed today: the government cannot compel the OWNERS of a CLOSELY-HELD COMPANY to act contrary to their religious beliefs.
Nothing whatsoever to do with "corporations" at all in that sentence, Mr. Inquiring Mind.
P
Priceless
Guest
But they have to have a soul. How can they be redeemed for their sins if they don't have a soul? Or did Jesus only die for flesh and blood people and not brick and mortar people? But if that's true, then what is the foundation of their religion?
It's all so confusing.
FadeToBlack&Gold
No Quarter for Fascists
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Here is the IRS definition of a "closely-held coproration":
http://www.irs.gov/Help-&-Resources...-Employed,-Other-Business/Entities/Entities-5
Here is the IRS definition of a "closely-held coproration":
http://www.irs.gov/Help-&-Resources...-Employed,-Other-Business/Entities/Entities-5
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Then they do not deserve the protections afforded corporations. Thats BS and its wrong.
unofan
Well-known member
Hobby Lobby is a corporation. A closely held one, but a corporation nonetheless. Hence the "Inc." in its name.
Kennedy's concurrence should give you pause. He essentially says single payer could be less restrictive than the current system. He pretty much implies that the government will be providing contraception to women working for hobby lobby just as it does for religious non-profits, which is why hobby lobby won today. If it couldn't, hobby lobby would've lost his vote and the case because there would be no less restrictive means of accomplishing the government's compelling interest in women's health.
So congratulations, your taxes will now be covering birth control for thousands of women. I'm sure you're thrilled to be subsidizing Hobby Lobby due to it's owner's religion.
Last edited:
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Here's an interesting nugget from the New York Times: how frequently do the same justices vote together on cases?
Even the Justices who vote together least often (Ginsburg and Thomas, Ginsburg and Alito) still vote together almost 2/3 of the time (65%)!
Here's an interesting nugget from the New York Times: how frequently do the same justices vote together on cases?
Even the Justices who vote together least often (Ginsburg and Thomas, Ginsburg and Alito) still vote together almost 2/3 of the time (65%)!
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Purchasing health insurance used to be a voluntary activity in this country. Then employers stupidly tried to bribe prospective hires by offering to buy it for them.
A paternalistic majority of legislators decided it was something we all needed, but lacked the backbone to say the government will pay for it and spread it out over the entire tax base, so they just decided to make employers pay for it because many of them already were.
If we need health insurance, or a country-wide program to pay for everyone's health care, they should have just taken the necessary step of passing it, and not this silly intermediary step of trying to make someone else pay for it.
If there was any chance this decision moved us closer to just a single payer system, I'd say it was a great decision.
Purchasing health insurance used to be a voluntary activity in this country. Then employers stupidly tried to bribe prospective hires by offering to buy it for them.
A paternalistic majority of legislators decided it was something we all needed, but lacked the backbone to say the government will pay for it and spread it out over the entire tax base, so they just decided to make employers pay for it because many of them already were.
If we need health insurance, or a country-wide program to pay for everyone's health care, they should have just taken the necessary step of passing it, and not this silly intermediary step of trying to make someone else pay for it.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier
Not to get too political on this thread as its a law related one, but I'm extremely amused at conservative posters acting like they've scored some sort of huge victory here. Since they're all males presumably (Fishy, Bob Gray) this doesn't affect them unless I'm missing something, and as has been pointed out they'll still be paying for these services one way or the other. However, this drives a stake in a GOP Presidential candidacy in 2016, especially against a female candidate. The people most likely against contraception are either 1) too old to need it, or 2) not having sex - pretty much the GOP base. However, as the public at large is in favor of such coverage, I'm real curious how whatever hard right fundie the Republicans nominate is going to finesse this one, especially when another right wing company decides they don't want to pay for a life saving operation (say a heart transplant) because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.
Not to get too political on this thread as its a law related one, but I'm extremely amused at conservative posters acting like they've scored some sort of huge victory here. Since they're all males presumably (Fishy, Bob Gray) this doesn't affect them unless I'm missing something, and as has been pointed out they'll still be paying for these services one way or the other. However, this drives a stake in a GOP Presidential candidacy in 2016, especially against a female candidate. The people most likely against contraception are either 1) too old to need it, or 2) not having sex - pretty much the GOP base. However, as the public at large is in favor of such coverage, I'm real curious how whatever hard right fundie the Republicans nominate is going to finesse this one, especially when another right wing company decides they don't want to pay for a life saving operation (say a heart transplant) because it conflicts with their religious beliefs.
- Status