The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

And, of course, this all goes back to the absolute ridiculousness of tying health insurance to employment. Why don't we just put it on our cable providers. Make them provide health insurance to us. There is no more immoral group of companies than that. Shouldn't run into any religious objections.

Ha! If I think Blue Cross is hard to get a straight answer out of, I can't imagine trying to get answers about healthcare from Cox. They can't even update my credit card number in a timely basis (takes like 6 weeks!). If they had their hand in health care, the results would be astounding.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Do you mean religious organizations that take on a not-for-profit corporate form? Like hospitals, schools, and the like?.

No, I mean like Hobby Lobby. They want to refuse medical care based on religious objections. So it would follow that the corporation must have religious beliefs. Is Hobby Lobby Christian? Muslim? Buddhist? What is WalMart? Target? 7-11? Does a corporation have a soul? What happens to it when there is a merger? Or if the corporation dies? Do corporations have a separate heaven, or do their corporate souls mingle with the rest of us? What if a corporation commits a sin (like polluting the drinking water of 300,000 people) and then dies...does the corporate soul go to hell? Or is the corporation automatically forgiven? Did Jesus die for the corporation's soul? What if the corporation is Jewish? This all gets so complicated...

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I'll give you credit Priceless, that's a well done tangent about a corporation having a soul and all. A lot better than most of the stuff that gets thrown up here.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Forcing someone to wear an item of clothing that in all likelihood has nothing to do with the job they do is of course ridiculous. As is forcing corporations to fund certain peoples' choices to use birth control. As with so many things, the silly hyperbole on this is in the stratosphere. You're not taking anything away from anyone if a given corporation doesn't pay for it for free. It just means you might have to pay for it yourself, heaven forbid.

You almost got this chestnut by us Bob. Question: How does a person's decision to use birth control have any impact at all on their job?

And again, if the corporation decides not to pay for cancer treatment because of religious beliefs is that also silly hyperbole or would that be a step too far? Where would you draw the line between something that is an actual medical necessity versus a religious belief?

 

[Hopkinja]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

What if the corporation is Jewish?

Then it will surely burn in Corporate Hell. Because Corporate G-d does not hear the prayers of Jewish Corporations.

 

[DisplacedCornellian]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

What if the corporation is Jewish?

Who performs that bris?

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Do you mean religious organizations that take on a not-for-profit corporate form? Like hospitals, schools, and the like?

No one ever claimed that corporations "have" religion (unless it is a "straw man" argument, and of course you would never do that, right?). It is the other way around. For any entity to have a permanence that goes beyond its human founders, it needs to be organized in some form prescribed by the secular government so that it can open bank accounts, pay its employees' salaries, own real estate, etc. etc. It might be organized as a trust, or it might be organized as a corporation. The terminology can be confusing....there are 501(c)etc groups of various sorts.

So if a group of imams or rabbis or ministers or priests found an organization, then that organization is recognized to have a religious exemption? but if a devout family founds an organization that operates in a manner consistent with their values, that organization is denied a religious exemption? what if those family members then get ordained? yada yada yada.

You're mixing apples and oranges - probably intentionally and disingenuously, but I can't prove intent. You're lumping for-profit corporations with non-profit religious groups and calling them both "organizations." Hobby Lobby is a for-profit corporation, so either a) they are profiting from running a Christian organization, which should outrage Christians beyond belief - there wouldn't be a single Christian defending them if they thought this was the case, or b) they should re-organize Hobby Lobby as a non-profit 501c, sell all that they have, and give it to the poor like the Good Lord intended. As it is, they're trying to have their cake and eat it, too - making millions in profits while using their corporation to foist their religious views on their employees. Just as a church should lose its tax-exempt status if it engages in political activity, a corporation should lose any religious exemptions if they engage in profit-making activity.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I think a reasonable line could be drawn between a company like Hobby Lobby, that is owned by discrete individuals, and a publicly traded company that is owned by whoever owns shares at the moment. There's a much more direct connection between the owner and the business in the first situation than the second.

 

[Handyman]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

You almost got this chestnut by us Bob. Question: How does a person's decision to use birth control have any impact at all on their job?

And again, if the corporation decides not to pay for cancer treatment because of religious beliefs is that also silly hyperbole or would that be a step too far? Where would you draw the line between something that is an actual medical necessity versus a religious belief?

Obviously it is hard to work when you are slutting it around on birth control...DUH!!!

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

You're mixing apples and oranges - probably intentionally and disingenuously, but I can't prove intent. You're lumping for-profit corporations with non-profit religious groups and calling them both "organizations." Hobby Lobby is a for-profit corporation, so either a) they are profiting from running a Christian organization, which should outrage Christians beyond belief - there wouldn't be a single Christian defending them if they thought this was the case, or b) they should re-organize Hobby Lobby as a non-profit 501c, sell all that they have, and give it to the poor like the Good Lord intended. As it is, they're trying to have their cake and eat it, too - making millions in profits while using their corporation to foist their religious views on their employees. Just as a church should lose its tax-exempt status if it engages in political activity, a corporation should lose any religious exemptions if they engage in profit-making activity.

See, this is what I don't understand.

The arguments are made that a corporation can't have a religious belief. Or has Priceless would say, it can't have a soul. I don't disagree with that. But it apparently only applies if you are a for profit corporation. If you are a non-profit corporation, like an incorporated church or something, you apparently can have a religious belief, or a soul. Not sure of their status regarding all of Priceless' questions, but if we're right it will all apparently get sorted out after the corporation "dies." I think that making that distinction is absurd. It's just a tax issue, not a question as to whether a corporation can really have a religious belief.

This is where I go back to my point that we got off track when we decided to tie health insurance or medical procedures to people's employment.

If it was to be done correctly, tax individuals and corporations. Then use the tax dollars to pay for birth control, to pay for abortions, to pay for health insurance. If you're a corporation organized for religious purposes, you'll avoid the tax (whether the corporation can have a "belief" or not). If you operate for profit, you'll pay the taxes. But what you won't be doing is telling a corporation, "you have to pay for someone's abortion."

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

If it was to be done correctly, tax individuals and corporations. Then use the tax dollars to pay for birth control, to pay for abortions, to pay for health insurance. ... But what you won't be doing is telling a corporation, "you have to pay for someone's abortion."

Distinction without a difference. How is it any different for the government to tell a corporation "Give us your money and we'll pay for an abortion," instead of "Give your money to Acme Insurance and they'll pay for an abortion?" Religious business owners won't like their taxes going to pay for abortions any more than they like their insurance premiums going to pay for abortions.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

It's pretty obvious that many people here have no direct personal experience with so-called "non-"profits. While there are plenty that devote most of their time, talent, and treasure to serving their intended purpose, there also are plenty out there that serve as a disguised "for profit" enterprise: incredibly inflated salaries, service contracts given to friends and relatives that over-pay for cleaning, supplies, etc., retirement plan designs with matching formulas that only vest for the executives but never vest for the employees because staff turnover is so high.

There is no clearcut distinction between a "not-for-profit" and a "for profit" when you dig down into the actual operation of these firms. I've heard and read exemplary things about Catholic Charities, for example. I've also seen several so-called "non-"profits that were totally bogus. I've worked for companies that treated all employees well and shared their profits across the board based on each person's contributions. I've heard about companies that are totally atrocious places to work. The character, quality, and integrity of the people running the organization is far more important than the corporate form, whether it is taxable or a pass-through or is tax-exempt.

I think the distinction between a closely-held organization and one with a large number of anonymous shareholders is far more germane. A business with two active owners faces a daily decision on how to allocate funds. Just like a well-run, bona-fide charity with an active and involved director and board of trustees.

Again, we are all getting really carried away, because the specific concrete "issue" isn't even a law, it is an administrative guideline, one that contradicts a different administrative guideline for apparently arbitrary reasons. Why the government should be involved at all, in one way or another, is the greater mystery. If a person wants birth control, buy it or go to Planned Parenthood. The employer shouldn't be involved at all, in any way, shape, or form, either way.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

There is no clearcut distinction between a "not-for-profit" and a "for profit" when you dig down into the actual operation of these firms.

I'm quite certain that there are no "not-for-profits" that distribute profits to shareholders.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

I'm quite certain that there are no "not-for-profits" that distribute profits to shareholders.

Right, they suck up all the "profits" in pay and benefits and over-priced service contracts to family members. The US Attorney in NY has indicted several state senators for funneling state money into their own pockets by using shell "non-"profits for personal gain. The "non-" profit is allocated $5 million and $5,000 goes to the cause it is supposed to serve.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Right, they suck up all the "profits" in pay and benefits and over-priced service contracts to family members. The US Attorney in NY has indicted several state senators for funneling state money into their own pockets by using shell "non-"profits for personal gain. The "non-" profit is allocated $5 million and $5,000 goes to the cause it is supposed to serve.

Another tax advantage the rich have yet they constantly whine about how much they are paying.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Distinction without a difference. How is it any different for the government to tell a corporation "Give us your money and we'll pay for an abortion," instead of "Give your money to Acme Insurance and they'll pay for an abortion?" Religious business owners won't like their taxes going to pay for abortions any more than they like their insurance premiums going to pay for abortions.

But I bet a lot of these same business owners feel just fine about their tax dollars (or insurance) paying for boner pills!

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

But I bet a lot of these same business owners feel just fine about their tax dollars (or insurance) paying for boner pills!

They obviously do. Those are covered. I wonder if Bob considers those "essential" or not? Probably not. Yet, I don't see anybody on Capitol Hill campaigning to remove those items from coverage.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

They obviously do. Those are covered. I wonder if Bob considers those "essential" or not? Probably not. Yet, I don't see anybody on Capitol Hill campaigning to remove those items from coverage.

For once, you are right. Of course if you'd paid attention to posts I've made here, you wouldn't have to say probably.


Of course Americans have a hard time understanding what is a need in comparison to a want. They think their wants are needs in many cases.

 

[jerphisch]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

For once, you are right. Of course if you'd paid attention to posts I've made here, you wouldn't have to say probably.


Of course Americans have a hard time understanding what is a need in comparison to a want. They think their wants are needs in many cases.

Beyond food water and shelter everything is a want. But as an American I am probably really dumb, so I am hoping someone as un-American as you can help me.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS IV: Gays, Guns, and Immigrants, OH MY!

Beyond food water and shelter everything is a want. But as an American I am probably really dumb, so I am hoping someone as un-American as you can help me.

I'm always happy to try to help those around me. What may I help you with my fellow poster?