Open thread: SCOTUS and Hobby Lobby/Conestoga

posted at 10:01 am on March 25, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

Arguments have already gotten underway at the Supreme Court as we post this, but it’s not too late for a recap. SCOTUSblog has its own roundup, so be sure to trek there if you want the blow-by-blow. (Audio from the arguments will come out on Friday.) We’ve covered the issue for more than two years, and Hot Air readers have a clear idea what our take on the case itself will be.

National Journal’s Sam Baker outlines the three possible directions this could take:

When the Justice Department has lost on the threshold question of corporate rights, it has always lost on the underlying challenge to the contraception mandate. Any time an appeals court decided that a company or its owner could exercise religion, it went on to find that the birth-control mandate at least seems likely to violate that religious freedom. And so the only way the administration has ever won on the mandate itself is to close the door before a court even gets there—which could prove hard to do before the Supreme Court.

The biggest hurdle for the mandate’s challengers is the marquee question of whether they can practice a religion. In one of the cases before the Supreme Court this week, a cabinet-making company called Conestoga challenged the mandate as an affront to the beliefs of its owners, the Hahn family. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, siding with the Justice Department, said the corporation and the people who own it are two different entities.

“Since Conestoga is distinct from the Hahns, the Mandate does not actually require the Hahns to do anything. All responsibility for complying with the Mandate falls on Conestoga,” the court wrote.

Chief Justice John Roberts likes to keep the high court’s rulings as narrow as possible on most big issues. He looks for ways to minimize the Court’s footprint by avoiding the biggest question—which, in this case, would be whether corporations are protected by the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause.

There’s a reasonably clear way for him to do that here: Avoid the question of whether corporations are people, and focus on whether—in these specific cases—people are their corporations.

Both Hobby Lobby and Conestoga are closely held companies, controlled entirely or almost entirely by their owners. The libertarian Cato Institute suggested in a supporting brief that because these two companies are controlled by their owners, the Court could rule in their favor without setting a broader precedent that corporations in general can practice religion.

CBS frames this as reproductive rights versus religious liberty:

For Christian conservatives, the cases represent the threat of government overreach.

“This case will decide whether a family gives up their religious freedom when they open a family business,” Lori Windham, a senior counsel for the Becket Fund, which is representing Hobby Lobby, told CBS News. “The question here is whether the Green family can be forced to do something that violates their deeply held religious conviction as a consequence of the new health care law.”

Reproductive rights advocates, meanwhile, consider the notion that some businesses could pick and choose which contraception methods to cover “out of touch [and] out of line,” Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro Choice America, told reporters.

Contraception is “integral with our economic security and our ability to hold jobs for our lifetime,” Hogue said. “We’ve had enough of this idea our reproductive health is somehow separate from our economic well being… Our bodies are not our bosses’ business.”

The two cases, however, have implications that go well beyond the so-called “wars” on women or religion. If Hobby Lobby and Conestoga prevail, it would prompt “a fundamental shift in the understanding of the First Amendment,” David Gans, the civil rights director for the Constitutional Accountability Center, told CBS News.

Both of these miss one particular point, though. For individuals or for corporations, the government can only intrude on constitutionally-protected rights for a compelling state interest. Hobby Lobby/Conestoga can point to the August 2010 CDC study that shows even without forcing employers to pick up the tab for contraception, 99% of sexually active women who wished to avoid pregnancy between 1980 and 2008 used contraception to do so. Access is such a non-issue that the CDC doesn’t even bother to address it. Furthermore, Hobby Lobby already offers coverage for 16 forms of birth control, only refusing to cover those that the owners consider abortifacients rather than contraception.

The Washington Post’s editorial board attempts to make the “compelling interest” case:

One goal was to provide adequate coverage to women. A panel of independent experts — not liberal ideologues in Congress — determined that assuring access to a range of birth control products to all women, not just those who could afford it, would convey major public health benefits. It’s true that some non-compliant plans here and there were grandfathered in — but they will phase out, making the rule comprehensive.

Under U.S. law, corporations get substantial privileges, such as limits on owners’ financial liability. Now, they have been asked to take on responsibilities, such as providing decent health-care coverage, with the aid of massive tax subsidies. Not every American of every creed will be comfortable with reasonable, general rules that extend across the marketplace — requiring vaccinations, say, or prohibiting discrimination against women in the workplace. But it’s not feasible for a corporation to easily opt out of any generally beneficial law that happens to offend its owners. That is a principle vital to maintaining a functional, pluralistic democracy.

If the goal was “assuring access,” then the CDC’s study should say mission accomplished. Thus, there is no compelling government interest in forcing businesses to provide birth control for free, no more than there is for forcing them to provide food, groceries, or heating oil for free for their personal use, either. Businesses are free to do so if they wish now, but they should be free to choose not to do so if their values oppose it.

Will the Supreme Court agree? I suspect they will, since the lack of compelling state interest is the quickest and cleanest hack through the Gordian knot of the RFRA, First Amendment, and corporate personhood this mandate creates. But that’s what we’ll see today, and what we’ll find out some time in June.

Update: Be sure to read Gabriel Malor’s political and legal briefs at AoSHQ. Here’s his conclusion in the latter:

The government simply misstates the businesses’ and owners’ objection. Yes, for religious reasons they oppose the use of contraception. They also oppose covering it in their health care plans and it is this very coverage that the government is now mandating. That is the burden and it is indisputably substantial, since failure to provide the objectionable coverage will result in crippling fines. The government’s attempt to distract the court with claims that the businesses solely object to the use of contraception requires the high court to simply disregard the actual stated objection of the businesses. …

I will conclude with a prediction based only on their briefs (and this comes before argument): the businesses will win. There is a key difference between a political argument and a legal argument that the government seems to have forgotten here. To win in politics, you take the other side’s worst arguments and hammer that. To win in a legal argument, however, you must take the other side’s best arguments and tear that down. Here, the government’s brief doesn’t directly address the businesses’ arguments, preferring instead to take a rambling trip through concepts like piercing the corporate veil, “attenuation,” and ERISA lawsuits. By contrast, the businesses focus directly on the question at issue: does RFRA protect them. It’s a telling difference.

There’s a lot more, so be sure to read it all.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 12:13 PM

 
Okay, but I have to be honest with you, it just wasn’t that hard a question.
 
Bmore on March 25, 2014 at 12:14 PM

 
Since it’s an open thread:
 
Yes it is. Well, the question wasn’t, but the answer as a decent man/father vs. ideological progressive poster on Hotair certainly is.
 
Imagine feeling obligated to defend a position even after acknowledging there’s clearly a difference between a dead fetus and a toenail.
 

People should have been made aware…and it they weren’t.
Or even misled, with the ‘cremated’ line…
 
verbaluce on March 24, 2014 at 2:04 PM

 

Been made aware of what?
 
Should they also be made aware of how they dispose of skin tags or ingrown toenails?
 
What’s different?
 
Go on. Tell us.
 
rogerb on March 24, 2014 at 2:13 PM

 
Understand what was accidentally admitted in the bold.
 
That’s why the ideologue can’t answer.
 
The father answered every time he refused. And we’re at what, four? Five times now?

rogerb on March 25, 2014 at 12:27 PM

My boss should be required to pay my water bill because I will die within days if I don’t have water.

This is much more serious than pregnancy, which can be avoided with or without birth control abortificients.

Meremortal on March 25, 2014 at 12:15 PM

Women want free stuff.

tetriskid on March 25, 2014 at 12:29 PM

From Fox News’ Todd Starnes:

EXCLUSIVE: Barbara Green, a co-founder of Hobby Lobby, released the following statement after today’s Supreme Court hearing:

“Our family started Hobby Lobby built on our faith and together as a family. We’ve kept that tradition for more than forty years and we want to continue to live out our faith in the way we do business.

“The choice that the government has forced on us is out of step with the history of our great nation founded on religious freedom. We believe that no American should lose their religious freedom just because they open a family business.

“We are thankful that the Supreme Court has heard our case, and we prayerfully await the justices’ decision.”

kingsjester on March 25, 2014 at 12:29 PM

That has nothing to do with it.
I’m just getting more selective on who I do and do not engage with…
out of respect to the threads and the site.
Odd how those that you’d think wouldn’t want to engage with me at all…yet obsessively do.

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 12:23 PM

You really can’t see the difference between “Don’t employ an 8 year old on the factory floor or in hard labor” and “You must buy a product for someone else”?

And if this is such a vital public need then why have hundreds of exemptions been granted? If Hobby Lobby doesn’t pay for abortions then the whole thing collapses?

gwelf on March 25, 2014 at 12:30 PM

Nope the one I linked. Not like verbaluce fleas or anything.

Bmore on March 25, 2014 at 12:10 PM

Verb has Fleas??

ToddPA on March 25, 2014 at 12:30 PM

Contraception has nothing to do with “reproductive health”. Everyone has absolute free access to any supposed health care aspects by just abstaining from sex if they don’t want to deal with pregnancy. What it is is a government mandated private sector subsidy for consequence free recreational sex. Claiming it is a health care issue is the same as requiring employers to provide all employees with a free bicycle because exercise helps reduce heart disease.

tommyboy on March 25, 2014 at 12:30 PM

I wonder what the libs would say if the govt decided that since gun ownership is a right, every boss must buy guns and ammo for its employees.

Meremortal on March 25, 2014 at 12:31 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court appeared closely divided on Tuesday as it weighed whether business owners can object on religious grounds to a provision of President Barack Obama’s healthcare law that requires employers to provide health insurance that covers birth control.

On the key issue in the case, it was unclear during a 90-minute oral argument whether the court would say that the companies could have an exemption that would allow them to avoid providing the coverage. On a threshold question, a majority of justices appeared likely to rule for-profit corporations do have a right to make religious claims.

Flora Duh on March 25, 2014 at 12:32 PM

Contraception has nothing to do with “reproductive health”. Everyone has absolute free access to any supposed health care aspects by just abstaining from sex if they don’t want to deal with pregnancy. What it is is a government mandated private sector subsidy for consequence free recreational sex. Claiming it is a health care issue is the same as requiring employers to provide all employees with a free bicycle because exercise helps reduce heart disease.

tommyboy on March 25, 2014 at 12:30 PM

Here is a really twisted outcome. I have medication that I must take in order to sustain a pregnancy…and it isn’t currently covered by insurance, and it isn’t mandated that it be once we are subject to ACA.

cptacek on March 25, 2014 at 12:33 PM

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 12:23 PM

Okay. I still didn’t think it was a very difficult question though. I answered it.

Bmore on March 25, 2014 at 12:35 PM

Claiming it is a health care issue is the same as requiring employers to provide all employees with a free bicycle because exercise helps reduce heart disease.

tommyboy on March 25, 2014 at 12:30 PM

Hey….quiet. We’re still dealing with their latest great ideas…..

BobMbx on March 25, 2014 at 12:35 PM

If you didn’t believe in abortion, the killing of babies, would you want to be forced into paying for an abortion

right2bright on March 25, 2014 at 12:23 PM

That’s the purpose of conscience protections….to protect individuals from being forced into activities that violate their conscience.

Expanding on that question a bit…
Should all doctors be required to perform abortions?

Should all teachers be required to teach that abortion is morally acceptable?

Is it in the public’s best interest for the government to force violations of conscience on a broad swath of the citizenry?

Do citizens have the right to conscience protections under freedom of religion? If so, do business owners, as citizens, have the right to exercise conscience protections in their decision-making position of authority for that business?

lineholder on March 25, 2014 at 12:36 PM

If Hobby Lobby doesn’t pay for abortions then the whole thing collapses?

gwelf on March 25, 2014 at 12:30 PM

I know it’s imperative to your position that you frame it as such, but Hobby Lobby is not paying for abortions any more than they are if any employee uses wages as payment.
They’re not even paying for services at all – but insurance…which is the individual’s insurance.

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 12:36 PM

Verb has Fleas??

ToddPA on March 25, 2014 at 12:30 PM

Lolz! Spell check was no help on that one. ; ) Thanks for catching it for me. Duly noted. Should have read flees.

Bmore on March 25, 2014 at 12:37 PM

Here is a really twisted outcome. I have medication that I must take in order to sustain a pregnancy…and it isn’t currently covered by insurance, and it isn’t mandated that it be once we are subject to ACA.

cptacek on March 25, 2014 at 12:33 PM

You proceed from a dangerous position. First, this is not about having babies. This is about having sex without responsibility, or at least making it someone else’s responsibility.

Dead babies do not move the Lib concern needle. Period.

BobMbx on March 25, 2014 at 12:37 PM

OT,

This site is going to explode once it posts what
Don Rumsfeld just said about Obama…..

ToddPA on March 25, 2014 at 12:38 PM

Nope the one I linked. Not like verbaluce fleas or anything.

Bmore on March 25, 2014 at 12:10 PM

Verb has Fleas??

ToddPA on March 25, 2014 at 12:30 PM

And I paid good money for this collar!

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 12:39 PM

This site is going to explode once it posts what
Don Rumsfeld just said about Obama…..

ToddPA on March 25, 2014 at 12:38 PM

Well, is it popcorn or pitchfork time?

BobMbx on March 25, 2014 at 12:40 PM

This site is going to explode once it posts what
Don Rumsfeld just said about Obama…..

ToddPA on March 25, 2014 at 12:38 PM

Heh, Al Sharpton and Jamooo and Fowler on Faux will esplode.

Schadenfreude on March 25, 2014 at 12:42 PM

Odd how those that you’d think wouldn’t want to engage with me at all…yet obsessively do.
 
verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 12:23 PM

 
We’ve covered this.
 

You’re interchangeable, and its especially evident on this topic. It just so happened that none of the other ignorant-of-the-subject HA progressives made the comically bad “incl. most semi-autos” comment. That it was proudly (re:fan) yours was unimportant.
 
We’re not laughing with your understanding of important issues.
 
rogerb on January 16, 2013 at 5:29 AM

 
You’re one of the few (D)s here. You’re what, one of two liberals on page 4 of a thread? It’s not like picking out a value meal at Chik-Fil-A. It’s more like eating whatever you find in the ziploc packed in the lunchbox.
 
Again, you’re interchangeable. I’m simply using you to make (D) points for us since there’s no one else around.
 
You get to carry the banner. Sorry if it’s too heavy for you.
 

We’re not laughing with your understanding of important issues.

rogerb on March 25, 2014 at 12:42 PM

OT,

This site is going to explode once it posts what
Don Rumsfeld just said about Obama…..

ToddPA on March 25, 2014 at 12:38 PM

Yeah that’s clearly destined for a thread of its own.

Happy Nomad on March 25, 2014 at 12:42 PM

This site is going to explode once it posts what
Don Rumsfeld just said about Obama…..

ToddPA on March 25, 2014 at 12:38 PM

You’re a good sport, just not very logical, so often. You should really try harder to be objective.

Schadenfreude on March 25, 2014 at 12:43 PM

HonestLib on March 25, 2014 at 12:05 PM

It doesn’t matter if it only affects 10 people or 100 people. Why should anyone even have to worry about an exemption from this heinous piece of legislation in the first place? Enforce it for everyone (equal protection under the law) or give everyone an exemption for any type of objection. This piecemeal enforcement, for only those not in an Admin. Approved special class, is totally illegal, IMO. (I am not a lawyer)

If this administration can corrode and diminish the 1st Am. they can do it to all the rest of the Bill of Rights. Even those of us who are not overtly religious in our actions or beliefs have a duty to defend the rights of those who do hold such beliefs. If you can stand by and let their rights be infringed who is going to stand up for you when the government is coming after a right you do care about? To me, that is the only argument to be made. What HHS is trying to do to religious people, and their businesses, is wrong. That we have a mandate to buy health insurance is wrong. Period.

jffree1 on March 25, 2014 at 12:44 PM

They’re not even paying for services at all – but insurance…which is the individual’s insurance.

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 12:36 PM

They’re being forced to pay for the murder of children.

Happy Nomad on March 25, 2014 at 12:44 PM

They’re not even paying for services at all – but insurance…which is the individual’s insurance.

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 12:36 PM

Hobby Lobby is objecting to being forced by the federal government to pay for abortifacients – like the ‘morning after pill’ which will terminate a pregnancy via a medically induced abortion.

That goes beyond a ‘service’. It’s not unlike taxpayers not being willing to pay for / subsidize Planned Parenthood’s abortion factories.

Athos on March 25, 2014 at 12:45 PM

I know it’s imperative to your position that you frame it as such, but Hobby Lobby is not paying for abortions any more than they are if any employee uses wages as payment.
They’re not even paying for services at all – but insurance…which is the individual’s insurance.

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 12:36 PM

Oh, they’re just paying for insurance. So Hobby Lobby should get to pick the details of the insurance since they’re paying for it right?

And you totally dodged my point.

You really can’t see the difference between “Don’t employ an 8 year old on the factory floor or in hard labor” and “You must buy a product for someone else”?

And if this is such a vital public need then why have hundreds of exemptions been granted? If Hobby Lobby doesn’t pay for abortions insurance then the whole thing collapses?

gwelf on March 25, 2014 at 12:30 PM

gwelf on March 25, 2014 at 12:45 PM

I know it’s imperative to your position that you frame it as such, but Hobby Lobby is not paying for abortions any more than they are if any employee uses wages as payment.
They’re not even paying for services at all – but insurance…which is the individual’s insurance.
verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 12:36 PM

Nonsense, the benefits offered dictate the premiums charged. If abortion if offered then the extra cost is specifically calculated and included in the premium.

tommyboy on March 25, 2014 at 12:46 PM

This site is going to explode once it posts what
Don Rumsfeld just said about Obama…..

ToddPA on March 25, 2014 at 12:38 PM

You gonna share?
Can I guess that he said it on Fox?
Or in a bar?

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 12:47 PM

I know it’s imperative to your position that you frame it as such, but Hobby Lobby is not paying for abortions any more than they are if any employee uses wages as payment.
They’re not even paying for services at all – but insurance…which is the individual’s insurance.

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 12:36 PM

And you don’t see the distinction between Hobby Lobby being forced to purchase a product for their employees they find objectionable and but not trying to impose (somehow) what employees spend their wages on?
The first is Hobby Lobby directly funding something they find very disturbing. The second is Hobby Lobby paying an employee for their labor and having no further interest. Hobby Lobby is free to do with their money what they wish and so is the employee.

What Hobby Lobby proposes is liberty for everyone – they get to buy products they find appropriate and their employees get to spend their wages on whatever they want.

gwelf on March 25, 2014 at 12:49 PM

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Wait on it.

You’ll soon get your chance to be outrageously outraged about it to the point of being obtuse.

kingsjester on March 25, 2014 at 12:50 PM

You’re a good sport, just not very logical, so often. You should really try harder to be objective.

Schadenfreude on March 25, 2014 at 12:43 PM

Yeah, I could’ve gone that route….but what fun would that be??

ToddPA on March 25, 2014 at 12:51 PM

CBS frames this as reproductive rights versus religious liberty:

First, translate “reproductive rights” into what it really means: abortion.

Hmmm. I wonder which of these is actually IN the Constitution….

There Goes the Neighborhood on March 25, 2014 at 12:51 PM

You gonna share?
Can I guess that he said it on Fox?
Or in a bar?

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Posted on Drudge….

ToddPA on March 25, 2014 at 12:51 PM

If Hobby Lobby doesn’t pay for abortions insurance then the whole thing collapses?

gwelf on March 25, 2014 at 12:30 PM

gwelf on March 25, 2014 at 12:45 PM

Let’s be clear –
The government’s agenda is to defend this particular aspect of the law.
Yours is for the whole thing to collapse – and this is just one more try. Many before and many will follow.
I look forward to hearing the oral arguments from both sides.
I don’t see this all as end-of-America as you do.
God knows (to coin a phrase) we’ve been here before.

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 12:52 PM

Also, this is an employee benefit and corporations can’t discriminate against employees on the basis of religion.

Hoping Hobby Lobby loses.

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 11:24 AM

Special stupidity prize, right here.

By providing ALL their employees the same access to birth control discrimination is what they are NOT doing, let alone on the basis of religion. Go get something else that might stick against the wall, now.

And just think how you’re flailing about TO suppress expression by other people!

Axeman on March 25, 2014 at 12:53 PM

You gonna share?
Can I guess that he said it on Fox?
Or in a bar?

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 12:47 PM

it’s in the same column as The First Lady saying there were
actually Laws that discriminated against her in this Country…

ToddPA on March 25, 2014 at 12:54 PM

I wonder what the libs would say if the govt decided that since gun ownership is a right, every boss must buy guns and ammo for its employees.

Meremortal on March 25, 2014 at 12:31 PM

Well, of course you can’t have that right…because…um…guns are icky!

Axeman on March 25, 2014 at 12:56 PM

Let’s be clear –
The government’s agenda is to defend this particular aspect of the law.
Yours is for the whole thing to collapse – and this is just one more try. Many before and many will follow.
I look forward to hearing the oral arguments from both sides.
I don’t see this all as end-of-America as you do.
God knows (to coin a phrase) we’ve been here before.

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 12:52 PM

Yet another dodge.

Nice change of subject there.

I don’t think or hope the court will strike down the whole law. No one has claimed that’s an option.

And collapse? The Law that’s been delayed, changed, distorted mostly for political reasons already by Obama? The Law that has hundreds of exemptions already?

So, given that Obama has already handed out hundreds of exemptions, delayed key portions of the law for years, and even illegally changed aspects of the law, why is it so essential that Hobby Lobby buy state-approved insurance which violates their religious beliefs?

gwelf on March 25, 2014 at 12:57 PM

Let’s be clear –
The government’s agenda is to defend this particular aspect of the law.
Yours is for the whole thing to collapse – and this is just one more try. Many before and many will follow.
I look forward to hearing the oral arguments from both sides.
I don’t see this all as end-of-America as you do.
God knows (to coin a phrase) we’ve been here before.

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 12:52 PM

And lets also be clear. The government is not defending the law (which Obama has not problem delaying and changing). The law doesn’t mandate this. The bureaucracy is demanding this.

The government is protecting it’s “authority” to capriciously apply it’s power.

gwelf on March 25, 2014 at 1:00 PM

gwelf on March 25, 2014 at 12:57 PM

Well…we’ll see.
Thanks for the banter.

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 1:00 PM

I know it’s imperative to your position that you frame it as such, but Hobby Lobby is not paying for abortions any more than they are if any employee uses wages as payment.
They’re not even paying for services at all – but insurance…which is the individual’s insurance.

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 12:36 PM

Really? Once they stop offering it, how does the individual keep this free-or-discounted insurance? Since it’s theirs.

Should you have to pay double to keep something that’s yours?

And surely the guy who was just a page back finding some sense in distinguishing between a person and an entity, be able to find some difference between a program that you paid for (a custom program from what I understand about HL.) and a context-free medium of exchange?

Of course, I see the Marxist purpose of jobs-as-property behind your characterization. Too bad you don’t take your own advice and get people who will run on that platform into office to change the law so that jobs are property, rather than re-defining it in the courts.

Seems like the slower election process is only good for us, not what you guys want. It’s funny because I constantly hear atheists saying that they understand the mutuality principle just fine, but then I find them blowing by it at cruising speed.

Axeman on March 25, 2014 at 1:09 PM

No First Amendments right for corporations? There may be a larger agenda here than just ACA.

Pless1foEngrish on March 25, 2014 at 11:47 AM

Couldn’t we then put back in place decency laws and shut down every pornographer there was. “No when you’re in the public square, you have to follow OUR rules!!”

Wasn’t pornography defending as “free speech” despite that the only people who can speak in that manner are typically businesses?

Typical of progressives to enter and then slam and bolt shut the door behind them. “I don’t agree with what you have to say, but I’ll fight like hell to get it banned as hate speech….Oh, that should be ‘and’.”

Axeman on March 25, 2014 at 1:18 PM

Contraception is “integral with our economic security and our ability to hold jobs for our lifetime,” Hogue said.

And no one is preventing you from having it.

but I’m hopeful that the court is indeed able to properly consider Constitutional rights….that people have them – not entities and corporations.

verbaluce

If that happens, then guess what? Corporations and entities don’t have to pay taxes either. They don’t have to do a lot of other things either since, per your wisdom, the Constitution doesn’t apply to them.

So yeah, let’s have THAT ruling, lol.

xblade on March 25, 2014 at 1:20 PM

From the Sandra Fluke thread:
 

Moreover, we cannot pick and choose which religious beliefs should be allowed to overrule laws the rest of the public must follow

 
From page three of this thread
 

But whatever beliefs a religion does subscribe to, you support that being reason to absolve them of following a particular part of a law or regulation? You would put no constraints on that?
 
verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 11:40 AM

 
So do y’all get emails or do you have to go to huffpo on your own?

rogerb on March 25, 2014 at 1:21 PM

I know lots of companies who hire “temp” day laborer workers
so they won’t have to pay benefits. Many manufacturing companies do this.

If the supreme court rules against Hobby Lobby, perhaps mini companies that hire day labor sales/stock people could pop up to fill the void. They could stay under the threshold of 50 employees
(I am not sure if that is the threshold), give employees insurance
in whatever manner they want and not offer abortion pills. These
day laborers would be paid by the mini company; Hobby Lobby would
contract with the mini company for day labor.

I know someone who knows about this than I will find regulations
against this, however, there must be a way to get around this.

Please, don’t start pounding on me for this – just throwing an idea
out.

Amjean on March 25, 2014 at 1:23 PM

Contraceptives are not medicine, (although liberals claim it is medicine) so no company should be forced to subsidize that in a health plan.

I’m also perturbed that religious people are becoming yet another group that have more rights than another group not recognized as special by the Govt. I don’t want to have to join a group to remain a whole Citizen. Not blaming conservatives, they have to find any path available to defeat a bad law.

cimbri on March 25, 2014 at 1:25 PM

A corporation or other for-profit business entity does not practice the faith of its owners.

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 11:03 AM

Not really true. Of course, a corporation cannot go to church, but privately held corporations have been established explicitly to operate in accordance with the religious convictions of their owners since the inception of this country. There is a distinction between a privately held corporation and a public corporation, perhaps that is what is causing your confusion?

mbs on March 25, 2014 at 1:27 PM

Not blaming conservatives, they have to find any path available to defeat a bad law.

cimbri on March 25, 2014 at 1:25 PM

Exactly wrong. Their rights are being taken from them. You have those rights also.

oldroy on March 25, 2014 at 1:29 PM

-Then what stops the Greens from next arguing that the laws prohibiting discrimination against employees on the basis of religion are also a violation of their religious rights? Aren’t they going to argue that it’s important to their faith that their employees practice the Greens’ religion and have the same beliefs as the Greens?

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 11:47 AM

Nothing should stop them from arguing whatever they want to argue. Why do you hate free speech?

Midas on March 25, 2014 at 12:06 PM

I always wonder how it is that the slope is slippery whenever libs start arguing things.

Everything works for libs: overgeneralization, simple dichotomies, straw men; and the slope is indeed slippery.

Axeman on March 25, 2014 at 1:29 PM

Is There No Alternative to Forcing People to Violate Their Religious Beliefs? – ILYA SHAPIRO

“On a day full of bluster both in and outside the Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby and it’s super-lawyer Paul Clement had the better of the argument over Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate. While Solicitor General Don Verrilli gamely pressed the plight of the “third-parties” who would lose out if the challengers get an exemption – employees whose contraceptives wouldn’t be paid by their employer – there didn’t seem to be a majority on the Court who saw it that way. Justice after justice probed such issues as whether the government’s interest here was really that compelling given all the exemptions it had already granted (to small employers, religious nonprofits, and grandfathered plans) and whether there was no other way to achieve the same goal. And those are probably the points on which this case will ultimately turn: (1) the contraceptive mandate was not one of the Obamacare requirements that became mandatory as of January 1 (or whenever the administration stops illegally delaying them), and (2) the government could’ve ensured the provision of the contraceptive mandates a different way (e.g., new tax credits or existing public health programs). Despite the parade of horribles invoked by Justice Sotomayor regarding religious objections to blood transfusions and vaccines, at least five justices seemed to recognize that religious-liberty claims are meant to be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis – maybe six given Breyer’s lukewarm and infrequent interjections.

The government fared even worse on its position that for-profit corporations can’t assert religious-exercise interests in the first place. Even Justice Kagan recognized that under certain circumstances, for-profit enterprises may engage in religious activity. While Cato’s amicus brief argued that this “standing” issue is purely academic anyway – the individual corporate owners feel the mandate/fines regardless of who is exercising religion or bringing lawsuits – I count seven votes for getting past this threshold issue.

As I left the argument, I had a bit of spring in my step, even as the snowstorm that greeted me lacked any spring whatsoever. The Court is likely to stop this callous, arbitrary, and needless bending of the will of a small religious minority to the federal grindstone. But alas that’s just this case; the more that the government expands and takes over areas properly left to civil society, the more clashes of conscience will result. Today it’s religious belief, tomorrow something else, but all these liberty-destroying mandates come with the collectivized territory…”

http://www.cato.org/blog/there-no-alternative-forcing-people-violate-their-religious-beliefs

workingclass artist on March 25, 2014 at 1:50 PM

“……and in closing, the State would remind the Court members to read through the briefing materials sent to your homes just last week. Those aren’t the only copies……”

BobMbx on March 25, 2014 at 1:57 PM

Y’all know that I work in a stationery/crafts department @ Walmart. If my customers are looking for an item that we don’t carry-I send them to Hobby Lobby.
I also shop @ Hobby Lobby. It’s a great store. Tomm-I might stop by to show my support.

annoyinglittletwerp on March 25, 2014 at 1:59 PM

I’m so sorry, this was the wrong Paste.

You’re a good sport, just not very logical, so often. You should really try harder to be objective.

Schadenfreude on March 25, 2014 at 12:43 PM

It was meant for verbie, on the fleas’ chain…

So sorry, ToddPA :(

Schadenfreude on March 25, 2014 at 2:01 PM

Yeah, I could’ve gone that route….but what fun would that be??

ToddPA on March 25, 2014 at 12:51 PM

I’m so sorry for the wrong Paste. Was NOT meant for you at all.

Schadenfreude on March 25, 2014 at 2:02 PM

Was intended to be like this

And I paid good money for this collar!

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 12:39 PM

You’re a good sport, just not very logical, so often. You should really try harder to be objective.

Schadenfreude on March 25, 2014 at 2:03 PM

So, verbaluce thinks that companies should be forced to pay for other people’s sex pills, strike that, women’s sex pills, because 8 year olds can’t work in factories?

Do I have this right?

blink on March 25, 2014 at 1:54 PM

Not only that but when you look at the central problem that the Extortionate Care Act was advanced on, free birth control wasn’t it.

There were x million without medical coverage (who couldn’t afford birth control?) dying outside of Emergency rooms (of not having a current supply of birth control) or people who couldn’t get care based on existing conditions (birth control? Women got healthcare before, right?) overburdening our Emergency rooms (for birth control?) or people apparently bankrupting themselves over birth control, or spending their lifetime maximum on birth control.

This has nothing to do with all the problems they said they were trying to solve. It’s got more to making people knuckle under He Who Wields the Pen and the Phone.

This is precisely the subservience that liberals desire of their political opponents: That we just shut up and do what we’re told.

Axeman on March 25, 2014 at 2:08 PM

Here is a really twisted outcome. I have medication that I must take in order to sustain a pregnancy…and it isn’t currently covered by insurance, and it isn’t mandated that it be once we are subject to ACA.

cptacek on March 25, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Thanks for sharing what you have to go through to have a baby.

This is quite revealing. The Dems sloganeering about women’s reproductive rights goes only so far as being able to kill a child in the womb, and nothing to do with sustaining the life of a child in the womb.

INC on March 25, 2014 at 2:21 PM

Today it’s religious belief, tomorrow something else, but all these liberty-destroying mandates come with the collectivized territory…”

http://www.cato.org/blog/there-no-alternative-forcing-people-violate-their-religious-beliefs

workingclass artist on March 25, 2014 at 1:50 PM

Thanks for sharing the link.

INC on March 25, 2014 at 2:22 PM

Is There No Alternative to Forcing People to Violate Their Religious Beliefs?

By Ilya Shapiro

On a day full of bluster both in and outside the Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby and it’s super-lawyer Paul Clement had the better of the argument over Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate. While Solicitor General Don Verrilli gamely pressed the plight of the “third-parties” who would lose out if the challengers get an exemption – employees whose contraceptives wouldn’t be paid by their employer – there didn’t seem to be a majority on the Court who saw it that way. Justice after justice probed such issues as whether the government’s interest here was really that compelling given all the exemptions it had already granted (to small employers, religious nonprofits, and grandfathered plans) and whether there was no other way to achieve the same goal. And those are probably the points on which this case will ultimately turn: (1) the contraceptive mandate was not one of the Obamacare requirements that became mandatory as of January 1 (or whenever the administration stops illegally delaying them), and (2) the government could’ve ensured the provision of the contraceptive mandates a different way (e.g., new tax credits or existing public health programs). Despite the parade of horribles invoked by Justice Sotomayor regarding religious objections to blood transfusions and vaccines, at least five justices seemed to recognize that religious-liberty claims are meant to be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis – maybe six given Breyer’s lukewarm and infrequent interjections.

The government fared even worse on its position that for-profit corporations can’t assert religious-exercise interests in the first place. Even Justice Kagan recognized that under certain circumstances, for-profit enterprises may engage in religious activity. While Cato’s amicus brief argued that this “standing” issue is purely academic anyway – the individual corporate owners feel the mandate/fines regardless of who is exercising religion or bringing lawsuits – I count seven votes for getting past this threshold issue.

As I left the argument, I had a bit of spring in my step, even as the snowstorm that greeted me lacked any spring whatsoever. The Court is likely to stop this callous, arbitrary, and needless bending of the will of a small religious minority to the federal grindstone. But alas that’s just this case; the more that the government expands and takes over areas properly left to civil society, the more clashes of conscience will result. Today it’s religious belief, tomorrow something else, but all these liberty-destroying mandates come with the collectivized territory.

Resist We Much on March 25, 2014 at 2:28 PM

I’m also perturbed that religious people are becoming yet another group that have more rights than another group not recognized as special by the Govt. I don’t want to have to join a group to remain a whole Citizen. Not blaming conservatives, they have to find any path available to defeat a bad law.

cimbri on March 25, 2014 at 1:25 PM

We already have the right. It’s called the 1st Amendment. I would be happy to add another amendment to also protect your non-religous rights to not do something due to your conscientious objections. But don’t take ours away.

cptacek on March 25, 2014 at 2:31 PM

Here is a really twisted outcome. I have medication that I must take in order to sustain a pregnancy…and it isn’t currently covered by insurance, and it isn’t mandated that it be once we are subject to ACA.

cptacek on March 25, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Thanks for sharing what you have to go through to have a baby.

This is quite revealing. The Dems sloganeering about women’s reproductive rights goes only so far as being able to kill a child in the womb, and nothing to do with sustaining the life of a child in the womb.

INC on March 25, 2014 at 2:21 PM
Yeah, and it cost signification more than $9 / month BCPs. With shipping, because I can only get it from a pharmacy 5 hours away from me, it is $55 every 2 1/2 weeks.

cptacek on March 25, 2014 at 2:32 PM

Er, let’s try that again.

Yeah, and it costs significantly more than $9 / month BCPs. With shipping, because I can only get it from a pharmacy 5 hours away from me, it is $55 every 2 1/2 weeks.

cptacek on March 25, 2014 at 2:33 PM

Despite the parade of horribles invoked by Justice Sotomayor regarding religious objections to blood transfusions and vaccines

workingclass artist on March 25, 2014 at 1:50 PM
If a company wanted to purchase health insurance plans for their employees that excluded blood transfusions and vaccines, then I assume the employees would simply pay out of pocket for those items. This means that employees would consider such possible out of pocket costs when considering (and, after employment, reevaluating) their employer’s compensation package with respect to competing compensation that they have a right to pursue.

blink on March 25, 2014 at 2:01 PM

The liberal’s default position is that liberty is too dangerous. I mean, what if someone makes the wrong decision? We’re all better off if the government just makes people do the right thing.

gwelf on March 25, 2014 at 2:34 PM

cptacek on March 25, 2014 at 2:33 PM

I’m not at all surprised that it’s so expensive.

INC on March 25, 2014 at 2:35 PM

Resist We Much on March 25, 2014 at 2:28 PM

She get’s to the crux of it.
The progressive movement has always seen civil society as an illegitimate alternative to government action. They think nothing to come between the individual and the state and that all enterprises and institutions should be defacto arms of the state.

gwelf on March 25, 2014 at 2:39 PM

We already have the right. It’s called the 1st Amendment. I would be happy to add another amendment to also protect your non-religous rights to not do something due to your conscientious objections. But don’t take ours away.

cptacek on March 25, 2014 at 2:31 PM

Okay, thanks. We need a few more amendments.

cimbri on March 25, 2014 at 2:41 PM

Does anyone have a link to an editorial that Steve Green wrote explaining his family’s business, their Christian beliefs, and this case?

I’m fairly sure I read it a month or two ago, but I can’t find it now.

Thanks.

INC on March 25, 2014 at 2:43 PM

So do y’all get emails or do you have to go to huffpo on your own?

rogerb on March 25, 2014 at 1:21 PM

How do we know verbaluce is not a particularly hirsute female with a bad hairdo?

Nutstuyu on March 25, 2014 at 2:44 PM

cptacek on March 25, 2014 at 2:33 PM

So? Ask for a raise or get a higher-paying job.

Nutstuyu on March 25, 2014 at 2:46 PM

Nutstuyu on March 25, 2014 at 2:46 PM

That wasn’t her point. She was underscoring the incredible hypocrisy and lies of Obama and the Dems.

INC on March 25, 2014 at 2:50 PM

So? Ask for a raise or get a higher-paying job.

Nutstuyu on March 25, 2014 at 2:46 PM

? I pay for it. I’m just contrasting those drugs with the holy trinity of the left: BCP, IUDs and abortion. They require employers to cover those things, but not life saving drugs related to pregnancy. Just pointing out the difference.

cptacek on March 25, 2014 at 2:52 PM

Was the argument ever made today that if you don’t like the benefits offered by your employer go work somewhere else? I think this issue is so much bigger than the HHS mandate.

monalisa on March 25, 2014 at 2:59 PM

verbaluce on March 25, 2014 at 12:36 PM

Still drooling out the f*ckwitted reasoning, I see. What you lack in intelligence you clearly try to make up for in tenacity. Good for you.

Midas on March 25, 2014 at 2:59 PM

So, verbaluce thinks that companies should be forced to pay for other people’s sex pills, strike that, women’s sex pills, because 8 year olds can’t work in factories?

Do I have this right?

blink on March 25, 2014 at 1:54 PM

Pretty much. Brilliant, no?

Midas on March 25, 2014 at 3:02 PM

A corporation or other for-profit business entity does not practice the faith of its owners.

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 11:03 AM

Not really true. Of course, a corporation cannot go to church, but privately held corporations have been established explicitly to operate in accordance with the religious convictions of their owners since the inception of this country. There is a distinction between a privately held corporation and a public corporation, perhaps that is what is causing your confusion?

mbs on March 25, 2014 at 1:27 PM

–Privately held for-profit corporations are established to protect the owners/stockholders against personal liability, not to practice religion. If the Greens didn’t want the liability protection, they would have signed leases, hired employees, etc. in their own names.

I understand there’s a difference between public and privately held companies. Even then, there are differences between a closely-held private company owned by a wife, husband and some children and a more-widely held private company owned by, say, private equity firms or 10 investors not associated with a family who put up funds).

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 3:03 PM

We already have the right. It’s called the 1st Amendment. I would be happy to add another amendment to also protect your non-religous rights to not do something due to your conscientious objections. But don’t take ours away.

cptacek on March 25, 2014 at 2:31 PM

–So do you, for instance, have the right to fire an employee who has an abortion (depending on your religion)? Or one who won’t practice your religious values?

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 3:04 PM

So do you, for instance, have the right to fire an employee who has an abortion (depending on your religion)? Or one who won’t practice your religious values?

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 3:04 PM

Sure. Why not? You do realize you don’t have a right to demand someone else use their property in a way that suits you right?

Why do you fear liberty? Why are you so afraid of some very small group of people making a decision you think is wrong – so much so that you want the government to force them to make the “right” decision or else shut down?

gwelf on March 25, 2014 at 3:10 PM

If I had an employee, I could fire them for anything I wanted to in my right to work state. But, but, but, you say, employment laws! I don’t have to tell anyone why I fired them. And what employment law would cover that exact situation?

cptacek on March 25, 2014 at 3:11 PM

Privately held for-profit corporations are established to protect the owners/stockholders against personal liability, not to practice religion. If the Greens didn’t want the liability protection, they would have signed leases, hired employees, etc. in their own names.

I understand there’s a difference between public and privately held companies. Even then, there are differences between a closely-held private company owned by a wife, husband and some children and a more-widely held private company owned by, say, private equity firms or 10 investors not associated with a family who put up funds).

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 3:03 PM

That’s one of the reasons people form corporations but it’s not the only reason.

Surely you’re not suggesting that a union or a media outlet doesn’t have freedom of speech because they’re a for-profit enterprise?

As for closely held private companies owned by a family – that’s exactly what Elane Photography is but it didn’t stop liberals from stomping on their rights either.

gwelf on March 25, 2014 at 3:12 PM

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 3:03 PM

It’s amazing to see you and other liberals trot out this parade of horrible “what if!” scenarios.

Maybe this hasn’t occurred to you but liberty allows for people making decisions you don’t like. A free and open society allows for people to make what you think are the wrong choices with their own property and their own institutions. Maybe liberals should learn to be tolerant.

gwelf on March 25, 2014 at 3:15 PM

If I had an employee, I could fire them for anything I wanted to in my right to work state. But, but, but, you say, employment laws! I don’t have to tell anyone why I fired them. And what employment law would cover that exact situation?

cptacek on March 25, 2014 at 3:11 PM

–You could also be sued and have to defend yourself. Part of that would be a requirement that you explain why you fired the employee because the employee would allege you fired him/her for an illegal reason. You’d then have to have supporting documents for that, and probably any other firings you recently did.

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 3:15 PM

–You could also be sued and have to defend yourself. Part of that would be a requirement that you explain why you fired the employee because the employee would allege you fired him/her for an illegal reason. You’d then have to have supporting documents for that, and probably any other firings you recently did.

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 3:15 PM

What employment law would I be breaking if I fired someone for having an abortion?

cptacek on March 25, 2014 at 3:17 PM

That’s one of the reasons people form corporations but it’s not the only reason.

Surely you’re not suggesting that a union or a media outlet doesn’t have freedom of speech because they’re a for-profit enterprise?

As for closely held private companies owned by a family – that’s exactly what Elane Photography is but it didn’t stop liberals from stomping on their rights either.

gwelf on March 25, 2014 at 3:12 PM

–Freedom of speech is different than freedom of religion. So should a closely held private company be able to fire employees who have abortions, for instance? How is that freedom for the employees?

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 3:17 PM

You could also be sued and have to defend yourself. Part of that would be a requirement that you explain why you fired the employee because the employee would allege you fired him/her for an illegal reason. You’d then have to have supporting documents for that, and probably any other firings you recently did.

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 3:15 PM

Which is why it’s expensive to operate a business. You need to hire lawyers and an HR department to engage in all sorts of normal business operations.

Why does liberty frighten you so much that you want massive government to deal with .1% of the population making decisions you don’t like?

gwelf on March 25, 2014 at 3:18 PM

cptacek on March 25, 2014 at 3:17 PM

■Employers may not discriminate against employees who 1) have had an abortion, or 2) are considering having an abortion.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/pregnancy-in-the-workplace

–I gotta get back to work again.

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 3:20 PM

We stopped doing business with someone because he was a thief and his wife was a thief, stealing both from another company and her husband. Should they be able to sue us? Theft is against my religious beliefs.

cptacek on March 25, 2014 at 3:22 PM

eh. I would find it hard to do business with someone I knew had an abortion. I shun them in my personal life. I would use my HR department to find another reason. Or just keep my mouth shut and fire them.

cptacek on March 25, 2014 at 3:24 PM

Freedom of speech is different than freedom of religion. So should a closely held private company be able to fire employees who have abortions, for instance? How is that freedom for the employees?

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 3:17 PM

Speech is different than religious practice? Not to the founders it wasn’t. Not to the First Amendment it’s not.

You’re also ignoring Elane Photograpy. She sued not only on religious freedom grounds but on freedom of speech grounds. She runs a closely held private business but liberals still stomped on her rights of speech and religion.

Freedom for employees? They don’t have a “freedom” to demand by force of government the use of their employers property and time.

You can try to twist this into an infringement of the employees freedom but you can’t. Please name the freedom they are being denied. They have a “right to work”? A “right to healthcare”? These aren’t freedoms. You cannot demand the fruits of someone else’s labor as your right. But this is the liberal conception of “Freedoms” – a list of “positive rights” that government and institutions are “supposed” to give people.

You have a right to pursue life, liberty and happiness – you don’t have a right to demand someone else provide it for you.

gwelf on March 25, 2014 at 3:24 PM

Surely you’re not suggesting that a union or a media outlet doesn’t have freedom of speech because they’re a for-profit enterprise?

gwelf on March 25, 2014 at 3:12 PM

–Freedom of speech is different than freedom of religion. So should a closely held private company be able to fire employees who have abortions, for instance? How is that freedom for the employees?

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 3:17 PM

No, it is not. Unions are generally formed as corporations, as are the businesses at issue here. If unions have free speech protections under the First Amendment, then so should businesses have religious protections under the same amendment.

Unless a state has a specific law expanding protected classes, the only four classes given current protection against employment ‘discrimination’ are 1) race; 2) gender; 3) national/ethnic origin; and 4) religion.

If an employer terminates an employee for having an abortion, then the question would become if it is a sort of discrimination based upon gender. While one may argue that it is, what if the employee is a man, who is terminated for paying for the abortion of his non-employee girlfriend? It wouldn’t appear to be covered under the current Federal statutory framework.

As I said, it is possible that a state could make it illegal to fire someone due to an abortion, but, at least in the scenario that I mentioned, it would not be under Federal law.

Resist We Much on March 25, 2014 at 3:26 PM

–Freedom of speech is different than freedom of religion. So should a closely held private company be able to fire employees who have abortions, for instance? How is that freedom for the employees?

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 3:17 PM

Let’s let Power Line’s Paul Mirengoff handle your claim:

Corporations may have an independent legal existence but they are formed, staffed by, and act through individuals.

And let’s follow that with someone else from Planet Earth:

A corporation’s expression is the expression of the people who work for it and lead it. The law recognizes this reality when it holds corporations liable for the acts of the individuals who work for it, so long as those individuals act within the scope of their employment.

When you allow an organization to speak, people speak. When you censor an organization, you censor people.

More from Paul Mirengoff:

…when you restrict corporations’ First Amendment rights, you are restricting a vast amount of the speech and other forms of expression that we take for granted as being free from government mandates and control.

What’s a movie? Corporate expression. A television show? Corporate expression. What about hospital policies regarding end of life care or abortion? Corporate expression.

Third, if the Supreme Court rules against Hobby Lobby, in what sense will “private enterprise” ever again be truly “private?”

Discuss.

Del Dolemonte on March 25, 2014 at 3:26 PM

–I gotta get back to work again.

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 3:20 PM

Say “High” to verbaloon for us!

Del Dolemonte on March 25, 2014 at 3:28 PM

A corporation’s expression is the expression of the people who work for it and lead it. The law recognizes this reality when it holds corporations liable for the acts of the individuals who work for it, so long as those individuals act within the scope of their employment.

When you allow an organization to speak, people speak. When you censor an organization, you censor people.

–So a company has 50 employees. 10 are Catholic, 10 are Baptist, 5 are Jewish, 8 are mainline Christian, 2 are Muslim and the rest are atheists or agnostics. It has 5 stockholders, 2 of which are Catholics and 3 of which are Muslim. It has 8 officers, 2 of which are Catholic, 2 of which are mainline Christian and the rest are mainline Christian.

Which person(s) views are those of the company?

(And now I have to get back to work.)

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 3:31 PM

Welcome back jimbo3 you statist amoral f***.

Murphy9 on March 25, 2014 at 3:33 PM

So a company has 50 employees. 10 are Catholic, 10 are Baptist, 5 are Jewish, 8 are mainline Christian, 2 are Muslim and the rest are atheists or agnostics. It has 5 stockholders, 2 of which are Catholics and 3 of which are Muslim. It has 8 officers, 2 of which are Catholic, 2 of which are mainline Christian and the rest are mainline Christian.

Which person(s) views are those of the company?

(And now I have to get back to work.)

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 3:31 PM

The corporate structure decides that.
You cannot credibly argue that a corporation has speech rights but no religious rights.

This is also highly disingenuous. Liberals regularly blame a corporation for the views of it’s members. Someone makes an un-PC comment in social media and there’s some liberal brigade demanding they get fired for it. Corporations often cave, firing the offender and make statements distancing themselves from the lowly employee as not speaking for the corporation. In these instances the left definitely maintains that the views of an employee – and not even necessarily an owner, stake holder or officer – represent the views of the corporation. You can’t have it both ways.

gwelf on March 25, 2014 at 3:38 PM

So a company has 50 employees. 10 are Catholic, 10 are Baptist, 5 are Jewish, 8 are mainline Christian, 2 are Muslim and the rest are atheists or agnostics. It has 5 stockholders, 2 of which are Catholics and 3 of which are Muslim. It has 8 officers, 2 of which are Catholic, 2 of which are mainline Christian and the rest are mainline Christian.

Which person(s) views are those of the company?

(And now I have to get back to work.)

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 3:31 PM

The real question is why are you so afraid of these people that you don’t think they can’t be trusted with freedom.

gwelf on March 25, 2014 at 3:40 PM

Murphy9 on March 25, 2014 at 3:33 PM

I knew I smelled something.

Who next? Roger Waters/The Wall/Jailbreak?

kingsjester on March 25, 2014 at 3:52 PM

So a company has 50 employees. 10 are Catholic, 10 are Baptist, 5 are Jewish, 8 are mainline Christian, 2 are Muslim and the rest are atheists or agnostics. It has 5 stockholders, 2 of which are Catholics and 3 of which are Muslim. It has 8 officers, 2 of which are Catholic, 2 of which are mainline Christian and the rest are mainline Christian.

Which person(s) views are those of the company?

(And now I have to get back to work.)

jim56 on March 25, 2014 at 3:31 PM

…you forgot the Directors…

Ricard on March 25, 2014 at 4:03 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5