Posted on 03/25/2014 9:03:08 PM PDT by Beave Meister
In a dramatic moment at the Supreme Court Tuesday, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli told justices that U.S. business owners have no religious freedom to reject government mandates forcing them to cover abortions.
Justices and lawyers also sparred over whether businesses actually have religious freedom and whether striking down the Obamacare mandate makes women second-class citizens.
The notable abortion exchange between Verrilli and Justice Anthony Kennedy came during oral arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius, two cases linked by the companies’ owners objecting to the Department of Health and Human Services requirement that businesses fully cover the contraception costs for their employees. That mandate includes coverage of abortafacient drugs, also known as the “morning-after pill.”
Family Research Council Senior Fellow for Legal Studies Cathy Ruse was in the gallery during oral arguments and said that was the most remarkable moment in the court session Tuesday.
“This was actually the most exciting part of the oral argument this morning, when Justice Kennedy asked the government’s lawyer, ‘So under your argument, corporations could be forced to pay for abortions, that there would be no religious claim against that on the part of the corporation. Is that right?’ And the government’s attorney said yes,” Ruse said.
“You could hear a pin drop, and I think that stunned Justice Kennedy. Since he’s always the swing vote, you want to stun him in a way that pushes him over to your side of the column,” she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at mobile.wnd.com ...
Wrong. Stop quoting the left’s parody version of Citizens United. (Or did you leave off as \sarcasm tag?)
The first thing I did when I saw your comment was check your sign up date.
(that’s not a compliment)
No sarcasm I believed what I wrote. I did have a fellow Freeper explain it to me so I am clear now.
What do you think a corporation is if not human beings working together? My wife and I are a corporation. My brother is one also. I worked for one that consisted of a man and his son. We know lots of corporations like that. Should we be denied the right to practice our religion and follow our conscience because of the legal form we have chosen for our businesses? Even huge corporations are owned by real people. I own shares in Coca Cola, Ford, British Petroleum and others. Are only partnerships, proprietorships and LLCs allowed freedom of religion?
That’s right - getting a marriage license is a form of incorporation. And as to why different corporate forms are given different privileges, it’s simple - because that serves the needs of the State.
A marriage license is actually nothing other than a TAX STATUS. You get one because you want to be able to file in a certain way. In return, your marriage gets incorprated, and you both agree to become vulnerable to any number of associated laws.
Marriage used to be the sole venue of the Church. And even though marriage licenses were given by the government long ago, they were solely for the government to acknowlege the marriage for the purposes of government issues - such as when a Revolutionary War vet got a pension, or a deceased government employee’s wife got a pension. These “marriage licenses” by no means CREATED a marriage - they just ACKNOWLEDGED it.
Since the 14th Amendment, however, and the incorporation of Washington DC in 1874, the government has granted itself the power of corporate creation - and the presumption of corporate creation against human beings.
Game changer, to say the least.
Appreciate the reply. Will adjust my understanding accordingly. You have my thanks.
Proof?
According to the DOJ, freedom of religion is enjoyed only individuals...and non-profit corporations.
The concept of a corporation existing solely for the benefit of the state was an alien concept to business law prior to the likes of Mussolini and Hitler coming along. The concept was originally conceived so that the business entity could outlive any individual human member, and enter into legally binding contractual agreements just like an individual.
You can work together and remain personally liable for any harm your products make, OR you can incorporate so that the LEGAL PERSON of the corporation is liable and not you personally. Right? Isn't that the benefit of incorporation? So I can ask you in return, why whouldn't you be personally liable for hurting someone? Because you have a piece of paper? That's a pretty powerful piece of paper! So why don't you question how it works? Don't you wonder how it protects you? And when you read that the law treats the corporation as a person, how in any way does that refer to the people working for it? Isn't it plain that the corporation person is NOT the people working for it? After all, it's PURPOSE is to take the fall, right? So it HAS to be separate.
Well, where did it come from? Did God make it? Was it born of woman? Is it actually human? No. The government made it - the government is it's creator - and by law, the creator of something OWNS it. That's why you pay corporate taxes - thats why the government can demand them - because you work for it's creation. Did you know that many tax rulings have affirmed that the power of the goverment to tax is 100%? And that, say, a 10% tax under the law (for example) is NOT the government demanding 10% of your money - but the government ALLOWING you to KEEP 90% of ITS money.
That's just reality - ask a tax lawyer. Thatls why penalties, interest, etc., can go to the moon - there's no limit, because under the law, it's already owned BY the government. THAT is the exchange you VOLUNTARILY make for that indemnification from suit you get from incorporating.
A "paper entity" means absolutely nothing without PEOPLE making things happen. A building full of machines and information does nothing on its own. At the end of each day, the "corporation" walks out the door, one at a time, and exists only insofar as those people come back the next day. If they (under whatever organizational form the group operates) can't say "we're not going to do X pursuant to individual right R" then their rights are violated.
I think we'll see Breyer going with the majority this time. It will be 6-3, boys against girls.
That's a trust.
Incorporation brings various levels of indemnification.
The history of the two merging is long and tangled. For example, corporate trusts originally provided zero protection from suit for its members. In the 1800s, you as a $1 shareholder in Morgan Bank were actually legally liable for the illegal activities of the bank - and that was true for ALL stocks. Expanding the stock market, therefore, was hevily based on getting indemnification for shareholders - but to do that took a civil war and the 14th Amendment and numerous rulings of derived incorporation over many years.
It was decided in Citizens United that one of these pseudopersons still had the 1st amendment right of free speech.
So why can’t it practice a religion?
Some individuals are corporations. For example, a lawyer may likely be a professional services corporation. An entertainer may be a corporation.
In a similar vein, certain wedding service providers may not allow themselves to participate in a perversity of marriage known as homosexual marriage. The question is do they have the right to refrain from participating in an activity that is clearly a violation of their religious teaching? The answer is yes they do have that right but the state says they concurrently lose the right to be in business.
Returning to Hobby Lobby the same question arises: does Hobby Lobby have the right to select which health coverage they pay for as compensation for their employees?
From a different perspective the recognition that employee benefits are in fact a compensation to employees as a part of their overall pay package, does the government have the authority to decide for employers what an employee compensation package should look like?
The benefits of employer sponsored health plans are lower costs and higher coverage. Individual plans cannot compete with employer sponsored plans. To force, as Sotomayor said, employers to drop their sponsored health plans and allow employees to go to the exchanges is to consign an employee’s health to an inferior plan with an ultimate risk of death due to lack of coverage or lack of doctors. But even putting aside this argument of hysterical reality, it is important to note the government is interfering with a business’ model when a remedy would be to simply tax the employee.
Without any religious argument, an employer should be free to choose the total compensation plan for their employees. In fact, this is often a part of a business plan as a retention policy as well as an action of business branding.
A company may be known by how it treats its employees and for many companies it is their employees that represent the most important asset of the company.
What the government is doing is back-handed. They are forcing a cost on the employer without that cost represented as a tax. If an employee paycheck had a field for an abortion related tax, then the roles and responsibilities would be much clearer.
That's a business.
A corporation is a legal entity that doesn't give a damn if the people drop dead, as long as its papers are filed properly and it has a bank account. That's just a fact.
People do business THROUGH corporations. The corporation is not the business - the corporation is the legal shield the people doing business have elected to pay for the government to create on their behalf, for which they receive personal indemnification, and for which they pay corporate taxes and follow corporate laws.
the problem is two-fold. it is lack of enforcement of some things as you mention. it is also warped twisted interpretation of it that goes unchecked and uncorrected, and that cannot be allowed to continue, either. both problems corrupt it.
The word "individual" means a human being operating in a corporate capacity, either as a corporate officer, or personally within a professional corporate capacity.
The actual work of a lawyer or an entertainer is their work alone, for which they may be sued in their personal capacities. If they choose to incorporate, and represent their work THROUGH that corporation, then they voluntarily surrender their rights for taxed and regulated corporate privileges, in return for personal indemnification.
Returning to Hobby Lobby the same question arises: does Hobby Lobby have the right to select which health coverage they pay for as compensation for their employees?
"Hobby Lobby" is a corporation. A corporation has no rights. Corporations have privileges which are extended to them by the government solely at the pleasure of the government, and for the purposes of the government alone.
I'm not makin this stuff up - this is what these lawyers argue about in front of the Court. Everyone knows the law - what the lawyers argue about is what is in the best interests OF THE STATE. That's what Hobby Lobby's own lawyer is arguing - that it is in the interests of the State to extend the PRIVILEGE of religious freedom to the Hobby Lobby corporation. THAT is what the Justices are trying to decide.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.