Does a corporation have 1st Amendment religious rights?

[rvg]

Everyone knows good Catholics don't ask for assistance in anti-procreation methods. So why do these businesses need to worry about their fellow religious-goers using these plans anyway.

Because there are plenty of bad Catholics like yours truly.

[Beskar]

Because there are plenty of bad Catholics like yours truly.

I don't know you to disagree with you, so I have to take you at your word.

But seriously, are people actually imply that these businesses apparently completely bent on being full text book Christians to the letter, not a doubt in site, not trusting their own employees not to use the legally entitled plans for religious reasons? If that is the truth, then it simply proves that corporations cannot have personage, as they are not truly representative as it is virtually saying "I won't do this, as a Christian" then actively choosing the option when presented with it.

[Xiahou]

Are we debating the merits of their religious views, or their right to have them?

[Papewaio]

Or their right to impose them on others ie make a Sikh remove his turban at work because it offends xyz corporate religion.

[Montmorency]

Neither. We are debating whether legislation that requires employers to provide a benefit to their employees can be struck down merely because some, or hypothetically all, of the ownership of a corporation, disagree with the legislation on religious grounds.

Currently, the U.S. Selective Service System states, "Beliefs which qualify a registrant for conscientious objector status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical; however, a man's reasons for not wanting to participate in a war must not be based on politics, expediency, or self-interest.

Any conscientious objection analogy will fail for this reason (among others), namely that corporations - being persons, and existing primarily to accrue profits to their constituent owners or shareholders - can not be given a benefit-of-the-doubt here.

But before you protest that you hadn't (yet) advanced this analogy:

Why shouldn't groups retain the rights of the individuals making it up?

Has a tax or any other government-imposed fiduciary liability on a citizen ever been killed by a plea to the right of Free Exercise of Religion? Would it make sense for a Mennonite to declare that contributing tax dollars to a state which engages in wars or aggressive maneuvers is against his 1st-Am rights, and so the state's right to wage war and the citizen's right to Free Exercise necessarily come into conflict?

If organizations should have the same rights as individuals, then apparently individuals possess rights that organizations do not. Yet these guys in the OP story didn't bring the case to the courts on an individual basis, and I don't suppose anyone has done anything like it on an individual basis before, so - would their individual desires to not pay for contraception for their employees (because religion) ever make it a day in court? If so, why didn't they take this route first? Why haven't thousands of businessmen? Surely it would be well-established by now and no government overreach would clash with religious sensibilities of proprietary firms and sole-ownerships and yadda-yadda or else the offending legislation would quickly be modified or repealed under the weight of judicial precedent...

Yet I doubt you could show that this is the case, and so it seems very clear that these guys are attempting to gain an advantage, to wrest a wholly new right, a right of impunity and meretricity, one that no individual possesses.

So there.

[rvg]

It may sound great in theory, but that would mean sky-rocketing administration(bureaucracy) costs, dwarfing that of the USSR.

Even today's technology will largely nullify those costs. Now, I'm not advocating that system, but it's definitely feasible, and in a few decades/centuries when the nation-states vanish and get replaced by corporations, this can be the way of life. Of course by the time this happens we'll all be dead, so it doesn't really matter for us in any practical sense.

[Xiahou]

Has a tax or any other government-imposed fiduciary liability on a citizen ever been killed by a plea to the right of Free Exercise of Religion? Would it make sense for a Mennonite to declare that contributing tax dollars to a state which engages in wars or aggressive maneuvers is against his 1st-Am rights, and so the state's right to wage war and the citizen's right to Free Exercise necessarily come into conflict?

Great questions. But they're irrelevant to the discussion.

We're not talking about taxes.

[Lemur]

Are we debating the merits of their religious views, or their right to have them?

Neither, obviously, although nice attempt to re-frame the debate.

We're not talking about taxes.

And yet another attempt to re-frame of the debate. I feel like I'm watching The Question Is Moot.

So wait, employed-mandated healthcare and the individual mandate aren't a tax? Wasn't Obamacare affirmed by the Supreme Court as falling under Congress' right to levy taxes? Wasn't the central Republican argument against Obamacare that it was a tax by any other name? And now it's not?

Pshaw. You're clearly off-topic. The real question is whether or not Latvia should be in the EU.

[Xiahou]

So wait, employed-mandated healthcare and the individual mandate aren't a tax?

Correct.
The SCOTUS decided that the government levied penalty for not having insurance was a tax. It did not decide that buying insurance was a tax.... that would be silly.

It makes it hard to discuss the merits of the case in the OP when posters don't seem to understand what the case is about. It's not about taxes- the Hobby Lobby case was about whether a corporation has the free exercise right under the First Amendment. The 10th Circuit said it does. Taxation was not part of their decision.... I'm surprised I need to point this out.

[Montmorency]

To reiterate, this has nothing to do with Free Exercise. Paying any sort of benefit to an employee can not interfere with the practice of religion, unless you're willing to make points like these:

*Paying more for employee benefits leaves me with less money to spend on the practice of my religion, and that makes me a sad panda
*My religion is against government impositions on employers in general

We need to stop equivocating on the meaning of practice. After all, wasn't it you who said that I would be OK founding a religion featuring human sacrifice, which is to say a religion which inculcates belief that to sacrifice at the appropriate intervals is morally obligated, as long as I never actually killed/sacrificed anyone? The religion itself and its practice are not one and the same.

Also, you never really addressed my previous post. How in the world can it make sense for a citizen to essentially claim that a government-mandated payment being objectionable to his religious beliefs is a violation of his right to Free Exercise, and so the government has no right to enforce such payments upon him?

And no, corporations can not be churches unless we just disestablish the legal attributes of "church" and treat them all the same way, however that might be.

[Xiahou]

To reiterate, this has nothing to do with Free Exercise. Paying any sort of benefit to an employee can not interfere with the practice of religion, unless you're willing to make points like these:

The 10th Circuit Court disagrees with you. From the majority opinion:

“A religious individual may enter the for-profit realm intending to demonstrate to the marketplace that a corporation can succeed financially while adhering to religious values,” a majority of the court’s full en banc panel of eight judges wrote. “As a court, we do not see how we can distinguish this form of evangelism from any other.”

So, anyone want to discuss whether individual rights apply to corporations?

[Brenus]

Most interesting: So, if I understand Xiahou’s intervention, in the USA, a Corporation, under Religious blanket, can do whatever it wants, even not respecting the law voted by an elected Parliament… How this can be conciliated with the individual right and anti-discrimination laws?

[Tellos Athenaios]

The 10th Circuit Court disagrees with you. From the majority opinion:

“A religious individual may enter the for-profit realm intending to demonstrate to the marketplace that a corporation can succeed financially while adhering to religious values,” a majority of the court’s full en banc panel of eight judges wrote. “As a court, we do not see how we can distinguish this form of evangelism from any other.”

Yes. A religious individual might wish to enter the market place with a sales pitch for Halal meat. That religious individual still has to pay into the Plan B pills package when it comes down to it. A religious individual might wish to establish no-working-on-Sabbath-day, and may establish opening and closing hours that way. That religious individual still has to pay into the Plan B pills package as well...

So, anyone want to discuss whether individual rights apply to corporations?

We've been over this before: corporations are welcome to their rights, but that doesn't exempt them from any obligation either. Rights are not a trump card to dodge obligations whenever it suits you. I would argue that rights come with obligations. For example my right to free speech comes with my obligation to respect yours; your right to religious feelings comes with your obligation to respect mine etc.

[TheLastDays]

I am a believing and practicing Christian and I agree completely that any organisation whatsoever that wants to employ someone has to fulfill all obligations that come with being an employer. I, as a single individual, might decide to hire someone to clean my house, drive my car or whatever... Even if my religious beliefs will stop me personally from ever thinking about abortion (or Plan B pills) I cannot use this to not pay my driver what he rightfully deserves for his work and that includes any and all health services that the law requires.

And yes, I think Jesus' statement about giving caesar his due applies here, I cannot interpret that only in the context of taxes...

[HoreTore]

Even today's technology will largely nullify those costs.

Are you kidding me?

Sure, IT increases production and saves costs, but it still costs a lot of money. Can you show me a single government-run IT project(or any other big IT project for that matter) without spiraling costs and screw-ups?

We're a zillion miles away from "nullifying costs" with regards to IT. I don't think that's the point or goal of IT either, though.

[rvg]

Are you kidding me?

Sure, IT increases production and saves costs, but it still costs a lot of money. Can you show me a single government-run IT project(or any other big IT project for that matter) without spiraling costs and screw-ups?

We're a zillion miles away from "nullifying costs" with regards to IT. I don't think that's the point or goal of IT either, though.

Who said anything about a government?

[HoreTore]

Who said anything about a government?

......Or any other big project.

They all end up costing a fortune.

[rvg]

......Or any other big project.

They all end up costing a fortune.

Yet they get done.

[HoreTore]

Yet they get done.

Of course, and they're great too, but "nullifying costs" only happens in science fiction.

[rvg]

Of course, and they're great too, but "nullifying costs" only happens in science fiction.

Not true at all. IT is usually a major cost saver.

[HoreTore]

Not true at all. IT is usually a major cost saver.

Of course it is, but it's a long way from decreasing costs to nullifying costs.

[rvg]

Of course it is, but it's a long way from decreasing costs to nullifying costs.

Good enough to sufficiently reduce the costs to make the pay-as-you-go system viable.

[Montmorency]

How does a citizen pay for national security? A safety tax?

How does one pay for the military? Residency tax?

How does one pay for police? If a crook victimizes you, you must pay for the privilege of not allowing the crook to commit further crimes against other individuals? What's the difference between that and a generalized tax, besides that it's far more regressive than the latter.

How does one pay for the fire department? Your possessions are burning away, so pay up now to save the rest? Or maybe the rest of the neighborhood will contribute to prevent the fire from spreading and burning down the homes of thousands? Easy to envision a rerun of Crassus...

How does one pay for the justice system? It's already desperately underfunded, and somehow I don't imagine poor criminals would be able to foot the bill. For that matter, how do we pay for prisons? Aside from the criminal aspect, what about lawsuits? If all the awards are confiscated by the state to pay for the process, then what's the point?

For analyzing usage of road systems, there would have to be a camera every 10 feet - a hundred times as many cameras as in all the UK. There would have to be very complex algorithms behind them to work out different classes of vehicles and other data for the price breakdown.

It seems very likely that PAYG is inherently unworkable. Shame on you for even suggesting such nonsense.

[rvg]

It seems very likely that PAYG is inherently unworkable. Shame on you for even suggesting such nonsense.

I'm only saying that it can happen. Nothing more. It might succeed or it might fail, I'm not gonna care since I'll be dead.

[gaelic cowboy]

Not true at all. IT is usually a major cost saver.

It only does that by increasing your productivity the cost will likely still be quite large.

[rvg]

It only does that by increasing your productivity the cost will likely still be quite large.

Either way it makes the unfeasible feasible.

[Papewaio]

Not all projects get done and not all IT projects are there to save money.

=][=

You wouldn't put cameras on the road. It would make more sense to mandate them on the car and add GPS. Covers roads, off road and accidents.

[Husar]

What Pape says.

IT projects are more likely to increase productivity if they're actually successful, nowhere near 100% are successful.

You should also be aware of this graphic or one of its variations: http://www.projectcartoon.com/cartoon/2

[Montmorency]

Interesting.

All dashboard cams linked to a central network, analyzed by govt computers...

If someone's camera stops working, an alert goes out to the driver to pull over immediately and wait for a replacement (for a nominal fee) or be hunted down by police. Tracking of cars through GPS and other means would certainly make it easy to locate offenders, I suppose. On the other hand, isn't that pretty much run-of-the-mill for dystopian-future sci-fi?

[rvg]

Not all projects get done and not all IT projects are there to save money.

=][=

You wouldn't put cameras on the road. It would make more sense to mandate them on the car and add GPS. Covers roads, off road and accidents.

Or to simply charge a road toll. No need for cameras, gps or anything else. Just a tollbooth.