Does a corporation have 1st Amendment religious rights?

[Brenus]

Interesting idea.

“this is about whether the government can force employers to foot the bill.”
Interesting: You don’t believe in Democracy by representation. I don’t know in the US (just joking), but in UK, taxes are decided by Laws, voted by an elected Parliament. I disagree strongly with the actual UK financial policy, but that is the law.

Let’s go for the alternative you describe: A Peacenik or a Jehovah’ Witness, being pacific, can refuse to foot the bill for the Armed Forces. Any individual can pay only for what he thinks is right. As a French Citizen living in a UK, aged 54, I can decide that I don’t need to pay for schools. I have no kids there, and all my education was paid by France, so I nothing to give back. In fact, I am quite fed-up to pay for English pregnant teenagers.
Armies, well, let’s say if I go swimming near Somalia and get abduct, who will come for me: Foreign Legion or SAS? I have a vague idea that it won’t be the SAS. So, I cut this one. No trust in NHS, so I cut this one.

There is no reason to keep the principal only for Religious Purpose. Believers in a Cause, whatever the Cause, could invoke the Right of Conscience. No more common laws, just self-interest. Who will pay for the roads? Only the users, and based on use, or tolls? I am not a car owner, and when I use a bus, I pay a ticket, so take this one out of me as well.

[rvg]

Interesting: You don’t believe in Democracy by representation. I don’t know in the US (just joking), but in UK, taxes are decided by Laws, voted by an elected Parliament. I disagree strongly with the actual UK financial policy, but that is the law.

Let’s go for the alternative you describe: A Peacenik or a Jehovah’ Witness, being pacific, can refuse to foot the bill for the Armed Forces. Any individual can pay only for what he thinks is right. As a French Citizen living in a UK, aged 54, I can decide that I don’t need to pay for schools. I have no kids there, and all my education was paid by France, so I nothing to give back. In fact, I am quite fed-up to pay for English pregnant teenagers.
Armies, well, let’s say if I go swimming near Somalia and get abduct, who will come for me: Foreign Legion or SAS? I have a vague idea that it won’t be the SAS. So, I cut this one. No trust in NHS, so I cut this one.

There is no reason to keep the principal only for Religious Purpose. Believers in a Cause, whatever the Cause, could invoke the Right of Conscience. No more common laws, just self-interest. Who will pay for the roads? Only the users, and based on use, or tolls? I am not a car owner, and when I use a bus, I pay a ticket, so take this one out of me as well.

The pay-as-you-go system is not quite as far fetched as it seems, and definitely not as absurd as it seems. In fact it might be the way of the future.

[Montmorency]

The pay-as-you-go system is not quite as far fetched as it seems, and definitely not as absurd as it seems. In fact it might be the way of the future.

In which case, fees for 'government services' - such as the right of driving down one block of a municipality - should be charged as a percentage of net worth, or something along those lines.

[HoreTore]

The pay-as-you-go system is not quite as far fetched as it seems, and definitely not as absurd as it seems. In fact it might be the way of the future.

It may sound great in theory, but that would mean sky-rocketing administration(bureaucracy) costs, dwarfing that of the USSR. You'll end up paying several times more for the administration cost than what you actually pay for the service in question. Unless supporting a legion of people whose only job is to stamp papers is your thing, I suggest you stay clear of this idea.

Suck it up and pay for things you don't want. The alternative is a zillion times worse.

I could go into moral implications and all that as well, but I don't really see the need as the extreme costs of the suggestion makes it idiotic enough on its own.

And speaking of idiotic, that's the only word I can think of when faced with the term "corporate personhood". I lol'ed.

Edit: Oh, and I had a look at Lemur's gif-link and found this. I have no idea how it's related to Obama, but now I can't stop laughing...

[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.

[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.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I'm not a huge fan of resorting to the Bible to settle disputes, but in this case I'll make an exception. To all the poor conscientious Christian businesspeople who are absolutely horrified of having to play by the same rules as everyone else: render unto Caesar... etc.

Seriously, even if you equate a corporation with a human to such an extent (which for some reason is not done when the real essence of corporations are involved: money) that does not absolve this new non-human person from paying taxes. You employ people, you pay tax even if that includes payments into the package which ultimately may or may not be used to buy Plan Bs.

[Xiahou]

Several people have made reference to taxation. This case is not about taxation. It's about whether the federal government can force employers to provide a service that they find morally repugnant.

Speaking for myself, I don't see why corporate personhood needs to come into play either. If I, as an individual,have the right to worship satan and I form a group that wishes to do the same thing- do they not have the same Constitutional right? Why shouldn't groups retain the rights of the individuals making it up?

[Lemur]

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

A group composed exclusively of people who associate based on faith does have protection -- it's called a church. It's safe to assume that corporations such as Hobby Lobby employ many people of many faiths, or no faith at all. So it's more a question of whether management's the owners'* faith can constitute a organization-wide right protected by the Constitution.



*Corrected because drone is right and I am a doofus.

[drone]

I am not a corporate lawyer but here's my take:

A group composed exclusively of people who associate based on faith does have protection -- it's called a church. It's safe to assume that corporations such as Hobby Lobby employ many people of many faiths, or no faith at all.

Employees don't count as far as corporate rights go, only shareholders do.

So it's more a question of whether management's faith can constitutes a organization-wide right protected by the Constitution.

The management's faith also does not apply to corporate rights, only shareholders. Management probably holds large percentages of stock, but I would say unless the shareholders are unanimously against birth control they have to comply with the law.

I susbscribe to Strike's siggie regarding corporate personhood.

[Papewaio]

I'm against religious organsiations not paying taxes.

Otherwise why not form a religion and pay all your money into that. Get your own hostels, hospitals and retirement village then let the rest of society pay taxes for common resources ie roads, law courts, military etc.

Make it a multinational and if the country you are in goes south skip town to a better destination.

=][=
If corporations have first amendment rights, then why not the rest of the Consitutional rights ie voting. Why can't it vote at federal elections? If it is a person and can select the religious beliefs of its employees why can't it vote or better still based on this topic force its employees to vote as a block or lose their job.

Because that's the rub. It is now saying that a corporations religion out ranks its employees religion. That the corporation can choose how its employees observe the corporations beliefs right now to some of the most important and that's reproductive strategy.

A corporation that can choose your beliefs and your reproductive strategy. Heck yeah, can't see anything wrong with that because no individuals rights should trump that of a corporation.

Can't wait for the memos from HR: So we don't offend any of our shareholders the cafeteria will now only serve Halal/Kosher vegan meals. Please note that all female personal will wear Burkhas to keep our muslim shareholders happy and men will grow their beards to keep our Sikh shareholders happy.

Please note we now get all religious holidays off so no work may be performed from Friday to Sunday. As they are all holy days for each of the Abrahmic religions.

The emergency department will also be closed after sundown as we won't use electrical generators so we don't offend our Amish shareholders (don't offend them by asking how they became shareholders). Also we won't be using any blood products to keep our Jehovah's Witness shareholders happy too.

Signed Dr Mhmd. Joyti Singh Stein-Smythe

[Xiahou]

If corporations have first amendment rights, then why not the rest of the Consitutional rights ie voting. Why can't it vote at federal elections?

It's members can vote.

If it is a person and can select the religious beliefs of its employees why can't it vote or better still based on this topic force its employees to vote as a block or lose their job.

I'm not concerned with personhood and no one has said it can select the religious beliefs of its employees.

So it's more a question of whether management's faith can constitutes a organization-wide right protected by the Constitution.

Not management- ownership. Management and ownership are probably one and the same with Hobby Lobby- but it's still an important distinction.

[Montmorency]

It's members can vote.

Then its members can choose not to be involved in business where businesses are obliged to pay for this or that...

Not management- ownership.

Or, how about this:

A private citizen claims that it is against his religion for the government to subsidize contraception at all, and that therefore the government's position against abolishing the offending legislation constitutes a violation of his religious freedom?

And how about this:

The First Amendment prohibits the prohibition of the free exercise of religion. In no way does any of this prohibit the practice of the concerned parties' religion, since that which offends one's religious sensibilities can not be interpreted as a prohibition on the practice of one's religion, or else free speech against religion would make the free speech clause of the First Amendment in conflict and contradiction with the free exercise clause...



In all this talk, you know what? Why not enshrine the personhood of the government, or the state in the abstract?

What would your objections to such an interpretation of the Constitution be?

[Beskar]

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. Religion is the individuals choice and if it is that individuals choice not to use those plans because of religion, then what is the issue.

or are you suggesting that suddenly a catholic business will suddenly have their female catholic staff members apply for contraception cover?

[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.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Several people have made reference to taxation. This case is not about taxation. It's about whether the federal government can force employers to provide a service that they find morally repugnant.

Whether or not I pay taxes through transfer of funny pieces of green paper, via manipulation of numbers associated with some account balance, or by providing a service -- it's all the same thing. There were taxes before there was money, and it's merely the transfer of economic output that counts. This service is a tax on employing people by another name. And that is fine.

Speaking for myself, I don't see why corporate personhood needs to come into play either. If I, as an individual,have the right to worship satan and I form a group that wishes to do the same thing- do they not have the same Constitutional right? Why shouldn't groups retain the rights of the individuals making it up?

Your right to worship Satan is never in doubt. At the same time you are also required to pay into a package covering Plan B pills which are used, as it happens, for non-Satanic purposes. This is not a contradiction, nor a violation of your rights. I have every right to call you whatever names, make up new and inventive slurs on your person whenever I like, and in general exercise my right to free speech to agitate against you. However, in posting on the ORG I am bound by its TOS which does not look kindly on Xiahou bashing and however wrong this might be according to my personal and deeply held beliefs, I shall have to abide by the rules of the ORG or find another venue to vent my spleen at you.

The same reasoning applies when it comes to corporations claiming first amendment rights as basis for exemption from taxes or other laws governing the conduct of commerce.

So unless you fundamentally disagree with the idea that if you want to play a game you have to abide by its rules, the alternatives are:

• Make the case that Plan B pills etc. should (fundamentally, whatever your other beliefs) not be part of the healthcare package paid for by employers.
• Make the case that corporations should (fundamentally, whatever your other beliefs) not have to pay for any healthcare package.

Of course arguments for those case should preferably not be based on religious beliefs because of circular reasoning.