If Corporations are people...

123578

Replies

  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,871 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    Here's a question for everybody.

    Let's assume I was ultra-orthodox (they're like Catholics. Sex is for procreation). I want to start Steven's Kosher Deli, LLC. The government mandates that I have to provide contraceptive coverage as part of a mandatory health insurance package that I must provide my employees.

    Should I have to choose between starting a business or staying true to my religious beliefs?

    Paying for insurance is not opposed to those beliefs. You keep saying this like we are handing out condoms on secretaries day. Are you saying that they should be allowed to treat women's health issues as if they are separate from the needs of men? You are providing health insurance. You do not get to pick and choose what that insurance as a third party pays for. You are not buying this insurance for yourself. That is like you are going to buy someone M&M's but you refuse to pay for the green ones.

    BTW if they are so opposed to contraception why are they purchasing goods from China. Are they not paying for abortions by supporting Chinese businesses?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,914 Senior Member
    It was nice while it lasted. Congrats to all for vigorous discussion that stayed civil.
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • Paying for insurance is not opposed to those beliefs. You keep saying this like we are handing out condoms on secretaries day. Are you saying that they should be allowed to treat women's health issues as if they are separate from the needs of men? You are providing health insurance. You do not get to pick and choose what that insurance as a third party pays for. You are not buying this insurance for yourself. That is like you are going to buy someone M&M's but you refuse to pay for the green ones.

    BTW if they are so opposed to contraception why are they purchasing goods from China. Are they not paying for abortions by supporting Chinese businesses?

    What does purchasing stuff from China have to do with the price of tea?

    This may come as a surprise, but up until January 1, an employer could always pick and choose what insurance a third company provided. You think Aetna or Cigna just had a standard product and that was it? My employer never covered contraception until now. And of course, as I keep on explaining to you, and you keep ignoring or not understanding, most large companies self insure which means they pay for this stuff themselves. Cigna or Aetna don't pay a dime - they just administer the program.

    Ding. Ding. The Administration, and you, see this as a fairness issue - women should be treated like men. That's a laudable public policy. The question (assuming corporations have religious rights) is whether this public policy over rides religious rights (like the Amish example) and whether the corporate mandate is the least intrusive way of doing this.

    That's it. Only three questions need to be answered:
    1) Do corporations have religious rights?
    2) Does the government have such a compelling interest in this public policy to over ride religious rights?
    3) Is the corporate mandate the least intrusive (with regards to freedom of exercise) method to accomplish this?
  • The interesting thing is how the John Marshall quote continues to be taken out of context. It was actually followed by:

    "Corporations receive constitutional protection, as Dartmouth College did, in order to protect the
    constitutional rights of the individuals behind the artificial entity.”

    So Winkler writes:

    "Religious liberty is certainly appropriate for some not-for-profit corporations, like churches or nonprofits with a religious mission. If Hobby Lobby’s owners wanted to form such an organization, there was a convenient and readily available option: They could have incorporated as a nonprofit. They wouldn’t be able to make the same kind of money, but they’d have a corporation with an explicitly religious mission. And under the Affordable Care Act, they’d be exempted from the birth control requirement."

    This is my point about a Chasid opening up a deli. Winkler thnks he should decide between business and religion (go form a non-profit, make less money). I don't think that's very smart public policy.
  • ricinus wrote: »
    ****, I wanted to hear more about this Deli you're gonna open!!

    Mike

    It would be just like Schwartz's in Montreal.
  • By the way, in reference to George's post about the SCOTUS being like the justice in Dred Scott, the SCOTUS has already found, post-CU, that corporations do not have a right to privacy in FCC v AT&T. It seems SCOTUS is picking it's spots based on what it thinks makes sense in the corporate context.
  • jbillyjbilly Senior Member Posts: 5,217 Senior Member
    Do the KKK, FBI and Church state play April fools jokes by not burning the constitution once a year?
  • ricinusricinus Senior Member Posts: 6,214 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    It would be just like Schwartz's in Montreal.

    There was a TV show on last week about Schwartz's and Dunn's in Montreal. I really got the urge for a smoked meat Sammy.. I got some Montreal smoked meat, a fresh loaf of rye bread and some Kosher pickles..

    Epic fail!! Not even close..

    Mike
    My new goal in life is to become an Alter Kaker...
  • It played here last night. My wife asked if I had been.

    I've never actually been to Schwartz's. When I'm in Montreal, we set up a lunch meeting in our offices, and one of the guy's goes out and picks it up.
  • dryfliedryflie Senior Member Posts: 1,442 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    It would be just like Schwartz's in Montreal.

    Will you make me a chicken liver on Pastrami sandwich please.
    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
  • In Montreal it's "smoked meat." Kind of like pastrami, kind of not. It's also cut in thicker chunks rather than sliced relatively thin.

    I'm not 100% sure Montreal deli is better than NYC, but it's really good.

    There's a steak joint in Montreal called Moishe's, down the street from Schwartz's. The steaks are pretty good and the sides are straight out of a deli: verenicas, karnatzlach, latkes...
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,914 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    It would be just like Schwartz's in Montreal.

    I was there years ago. It's good. but Katz's in NYC can rest easy. "Smoked meat" loses out to pastrami.
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • George KGeorge K Super Moderator Posts: 9,914 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    There's a steak joint in Montreal called Moishe's, down the street from Schwartz's. The steaks are pretty good and the sides are straight out of a deli: verenicas, karnatzlach, latkes...

    Are they strictly Kosher or will they serve a steak medium rare?
    Keep your stinkin' government hands off my Medicare.
  • dryfliedryflie Senior Member Posts: 1,442 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »

    That's it. Only three questions need to be answered:
    1) Do corporations have religious rights?
    2) Does the government have such a compelling interest in this public policy to over ride religious rights?
    3) Is the corporate mandate the least intrusive (with regards to freedom of exercise) method to accomplish this?

    It seems that the interface between the Law and Religious Belief is certainly conflicted. My opinion is that we should clearly and definitively define that boundary not open up the possibility of multiple interpretations. There are numerous, endless situations where certain unique religious objections might come into play. Are we to open up the possibility that every single religious objection is valid? Do we really want to spent the next hundred years litigating each religious objection to corporate laws.

    As a non religious person, one of many in this country I'm sure, I wonder where my rights to be free from religion tyranny lie.
    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith
  • George K wrote: »
    Are they strictly Kosher or will they serve a steak medium rare?

    It's not kosher.

    My mother always made steak well done. Always tasted like liver. I had no idea why anybody liked steak until I was out of the house.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,871 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    What does purchasing stuff from China have to do with the price of tea?

    This may come as a surprise, but up until January 1, an employer could always pick and choose what insurance a third company provided. You think Aetna or Cigna just had a standard product and that was it? My employer never covered contraception until now. And of course, as I keep on explaining to you, and you keep ignoring or not understanding, most large companies self insure which means they pay for this stuff themselves. Cigna or Aetna don't pay a dime - they just administer the program.

    Ding. Ding. The Administration, and you, see this as a fairness issue - women should be treated like men. That's a laudable public policy. The question (assuming corporations have religious rights) is whether this public policy over rides religious rights (like the Amish example) and whether the corporate mandate is the least intrusive way of doing this.

    That's it. Only three questions need to be answered:
    1) Do corporations have religious rights?
    2) Does the government have such a compelling interest in this public policy to over ride religious rights?
    3) Is the corporate mandate the least intrusive (with regards to freedom of exercise) method to accomplish this?

    4) Do their rights supersede those of their employees?

    Oh and quite a bit, they have no issue supporting the one child policy and government mandated abortions and now apparently they have invested in a company that makes IUD's. Also the answer to #1 is no.

    Nothing in the law mandates they self insure.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • 4) Do their rights supersede those of their employees?


    What rights does the employee have exactly in this regard?
  • dryflie wrote: »
    Are we to open up the possibility that every single religious objection is valid? Do we really want to spent the next hundred years litigating each religious objection to corporate laws.

    Yes and maybe. This is important stuff.
    dryflie wrote: »
    As a non religious person, one of many in this country I'm sure, I wonder where my rights to be free from religion tyranny lie.

    See post 6.
  • Steven wrote: »
    What rights does the employee have exactly in this regard?

    Nothing in the law says they can't either. The fact is that many employers do pay directly for their employee's care, and saying they can pay indirectly is meaningless.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,871 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    In Montreal it's "smoked meat." Kind of like pastrami, kind of not. It's also cut in thicker chunks rather than sliced relatively thin.

    I'm not 100% sure Montreal deli is better than NYC, but it's really good.

    There's a steak joint in Montreal called Moishe's, down the street from Schwartz's. The steaks are pretty good and the sides are straight out of a deli: verenicas, karnatzlach, latkes...

    Are we talking Romanian Steak? Have you ever been to Sammy's Romanian in NY?
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • ricinusricinus Senior Member Posts: 6,214 Senior Member
    George K wrote: »
    I was there years ago. It's good. but Katz's in NYC can rest easy. "Smoked meat" loses out to pastrami.

    Sorta like what tastes better corn fed beef or grain fed beef?? Personal preference.

    Mike
    My new goal in life is to become an Alter Kaker...
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,871 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    What rights does the employee have exactly in this regard?

    To make health decisions privately with their doctor. And saying they can do that if they pay for it themselves is meaningless.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • To make health decisions privately with their doctor. And saying they can do that if they pay for it themselves is meaningless.

    You have no right to healthcare so I can't really understand how you have this right. The Administration clearly doesn't think contraception is a right, otherwise they wouldn't have exempted Church's and religious not-for-profits.

    But for arguement's sake, let's say you do have this right. For arguement's sake, let's also say that corporations have freedom to exercise. Let's even say that the government has a truly compelling interest in promoting this right to make private decisions with your doctor.

    But you still haven't answered question three: is this the least intrusive way to do it? For example, wouldn't a tax deduction for contraception be less intrusive?
  • Are we talking Romanian Steak? Have you ever been to Sammy's Romanian in NY?

    Many years ago. Moishe's has more of a traditional steakhouse feel than does Sammy's.
  • fishingcomicfishingcomic Senior Member Posts: 23,871 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    You have no right to healthcare so I can't really understand how you have this right. The Administration clearly doesn't think contraception is a right, otherwise they wouldn't have exempted Church's and religious not-for-profits.

    But for arguement's sake, let's say you do have this right. For arguement's sake, let's also say that corporations have freedom to exercise. Let's even say that the government has a truly compelling interest in promoting this right to make private decisions with your doctor.

    But you still haven't answered question three: is this the least intrusive way to do it? For example, wouldn't a tax deduction for contraception be less intrusive?

    You have a right to equal treatment under the law and you have a right to privacy, I don't care what Sherb says.

    There is more to women's health than contraception and a deduction at the end of the year is no help. BTW this doesn't end here. Once you say a company has religious freedom, the civil rights act is killed.
    'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
  • dryfliedryflie Senior Member Posts: 1,442 Senior Member
    Steven wrote: »
    You have no right to healthcare so I can't really understand how you have this right. The Administration clearly doesn't think contraception is a right, otherwise they wouldn't have exempted Church's and religious not-for-profits.

    But for arguement's sake, let's say you do have this right. For arguement's sake, let's also say that corporations have freedom to exercise. Let's even say that the government has a truly compelling interest in promoting this right to make private decisions with your doctor.

    But you still haven't answered question three: is this the least intrusive way to do it? For example, wouldn't a tax deduction for contraception be less intrusive?

    Steven, what has not been addressed here is whether or not HL pays the entire cost of their employees healthcare. Does it make a difference if their employees pay a portion of their total costs. Do employees have the right to expect complete coverage (by law) for their contribution?
    “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” - John Kenneth Galbraith

  • There is more to women's health than contraception and a deduction at the end of the year is no help.

    We only care for the purposes of this discussion with financing contraception. Nobody's arguing that checkups with the gynecologist shouldn't be covered for religious reasons.

    The "no help" arguement doesn't fly since this is how insurance on the public exchanges are subsidized. The "no help" arguement also doesn't work because if the issue is one of cash flow, the woman could change the withholding on her paycheck.
  • dryflie wrote: »
    Steven, what has not been addressed here is whether or not HL pays the entire cost of their employees healthcare. Does it make a difference if their employees pay a portion of their total costs.

    Maybe. You going to try to argue that the employees contribution covers contraception? But then what does a man's contribution cover?
    dryflie wrote: »
    Do employees have the right to expect complete coverage (by law) for their contribution?
    Not to my mind. The contribution is commensurate to what's being covered. No plan covers everything.
  • Once you say a company has religious freedom, the civil rights act is killed.

    Why is this again?

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Fly Fisherman stories delivered right to your inbox.