Supreme Court rules corporations can cite religion to avoid contraception coverage

Yeah, because protestant sects are sooo incredibly pro-choice and pro-woman. Let’s not lay this solely at the feet of the “Papists” now. David Green is not a Catholic, but is a member of the Assemblies of God congregation, and is in fact a preacher in that denomination. It’s something of BS notion to blame the Catholic church, when it’s not just Catholics here.

I will also point out that the many Catholics dissent from official doctrine, and vote for pro-choice candidates.

And the break down wasn’t 7/9, it was 5/4, so there’s that. It has less to do with Catholicism and more to do with American conservatism.

1 Like

It seems to me that if corporations are people, and those people can intervene in the medical choices of their employees in ways like restricting access to birth control, they should be allowed to adopt the babies they are encouraging the creation of. It’s really the only logical conclusion here.

1 Like

Do we really want corporations raising kids… more than they already do, I mean.

I think that comes down to whether or not being an anti-natalist is recognized as either a protected class or as a religion. I believe the answer to that question right now is no. Whether it should be is another matter, but I don’t believe it is.

I doubt you’d find an insurance company that would exclude coverage for prenatal care. It’s a common thing. Unless you set up a private co-op type of insurance specifically to exclude particular classes of people from your insurance. I think co-ops are allowable under ACA, but you’d have to look it up.

Here’s a like to tuck away in your tunic.

Go ahead & make the opening salvo when ready. Can we agree to sacrifice no humor but maintain civility? I will try my damnedest.

Rules accepted! Shall we call it the “Why awjt is wrong” thread? :wink: Or would you prefer “On the merits and demerits of voting the lesser evil” thread or something?

Apparently, it is also no small thing to Hobby Lobby.

It’s not a matter of what I want, it’s a matter of their rights under the law! I mean, where in the adoption code does it say that only non-corporate persons can adopt? Really when you think about it, corporate persons should also be able to adopt even unborn personhoods (frozen IVF people aka embryos, for instance). Corporations can provide a stable environment, a proper upbringing that instills a good work-ethic, an education that focuses on the important things like economics, and of course they can provide overtime pay too. What “natural” parent can say that?

Of course, I’m only referring to “merged” corporate persons, when the merger has occurred between an S-Corp and a C-Corp. After all, it’s not Adam and Steve LLP.

2 Likes

What gives you that idea? Especially the overtime pay!

The answer here is based entirely on a number determined by multiplying the number of employees to the yearly profits which is then subtracted from the profit earnings of the firm divided by the ratio of highest earning employee to lowest earning employee and then all of this is multiplied by zero and actually based on how much money you have provided to various campaigns.

Well, why would they be? The Bible says nothing about, wait, where?

Commandment which?
Er… let me get back to you.

Well, call it what you will, I guess. Or, perhaps, Cow Is Shit. I like that one from last week.

Cow is the shit? Awwright, awwright, I’ll think of some neutral name and plug it up there now…

It’s here: The How much I love Cow thread.

1 Like

I meant the promise of overtime pay, once they turn 18 of course.

You bigot.  We vegetarians aren’t welcome on that thread, are we?  :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

You sound just like another troublemaker. You’ll fit right in.

http://virtual-host-discourse.global.ssl.fastly.net/plugins/emoji/images/stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye.png

1 Like

Again, what makes you think they’ll get that. Because of course, they’ll be raised with the corporations values, and that means no overtime… ALL HAIL GLOBOCHEM!!!

Best short article I’ve read on the decision:

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-corporations-can-pray-20140630-column.html

1 Like

Oddly, it appears that Hobby Lobby has no religious qualms against funding their employees’ recreational penis escapades.

4 Likes

I’m no law expert, but the distinction the SCOTUS majority makes between “closely held” and “public” corporations in the specific context of religious freedom strikes me as possibly the most specious, pulled-it-out-of-my-ass notion this court has yet produced.

5 Likes