Posted on 03/24/2014 3:30:26 PM PDT by secretsexposed89
Tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. CST the oral arguments will commence in the second significant challenge to come before the Supreme Court concerning the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In one of the most consequential cases of the year there are two sweeping questions that potentially will be answered by the Court.
Are private, for-profit corporations afforded the right to “freely exercise” religion? If so, to what extent does that prevent government intrusion?
The two cases being heard, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, raise issues concerning the First Amendment’s free exercise clause and whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993 permits a private business to opt out of a government mandate.
The First Amendment guarantees rights “of the people” while RFRA was instituted to safeguard the religious freedoms of “persons”.
Do corporations constitute persons?
According to the ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission they do reserve the right to freedom of expression on the Court’s logic that a corporation constitutes an “association of citizens”. In regards to the ability to promote ideas with funding from a corporation the Court ruled that corporations do in fact assume “personhood”. Whether this also means that such a thing as corporate religion is protected is unclear. However, it seems likely that the 5-4 majority in Citizens United will find similarly for Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood.
However, as argued in Slate by UCLA Constitutional Law Professor Adam Winkler, “The owners claim that their personal religious beliefs would be offended if they have to provide certain forms of birth control coverage to employees. Yet Hobby Lobby’s owners aren’t required by the law to do anything... If Hobby Lobby fails to provide the required insurance, the company, not the owners, is responsible.”
(Excerpt) Read more at reddirtreport.com ...
IT’S A TAX! < /Roberts >
Yet another problem caused by communist ideas.
Compulsion to contract is illegal. Stick your obamacare statute.
Say you are a “progressive” business owner - maybe in the advertising business - who wants to support liberal causes and NOT support conservative causes. Should you be forced to accept potential clients who want to you to create ads supporting conservative causes that you don’t believe in? I say “no”. But whenever I raise this argument with libs, they say that “politics isn’t a protected class,” and then I say, “OK, so gays DO have rights that others don’t have.”
Would we force "Republican" law firms to support efforts to expand government control over corporations? Would we force "Democrat" law firms to support a father's right to have some say as to what happens to his children, i.e. not have them aborted?
The "Public Accommodations Law" was meant to force businesses such as restaurants and motels to take customers regardless of race because people traveling to find work, etc. need to have a place to stay and a place to eat.
No one needs to get married right now or needs to have an ad right now. So the government should be wise like Solomon and realize that the law doesn't apply in those cases.
Similarly when it comes to inexpensive stuff such as contraceptives that anyone can afford, the government should forget about whether or not corporations are "persons" and whether or not corporations have a "religion". They should just be practical and say: Hey! Enough people are annoyed/shocked about having to pay for contraception and its not that expensive in the first place so let's not put this coverage in the ACA.
This particular issue more than any confirms my suspicion that Obama isn't just incompetent. He is evil.
I also think Obama is evil. Not just a “liberal” in policy, but evil, a man who lives by lying and deception.
It’s privately held, so that’s a distinction without a difference.
But whenever I raise this argument with libs, they say that “politics isn’t a protected class,” and then I say, “OK, so gays DO have rights that others don’t have.”The problem is with the concept of the "protected class". If you are a business that operates publicly or a government agency/office, the rule is you cannot discriminate against a protected class. So no discrimination based on the following:
Another thing about most law firms is that they are now corporations or limited liability companies, often designated by the acronym “PLLC.” Should the attorneys who chose the liability limitation advantages of the PLLC organization form be stripped of their First Amendment rights just because they choose that form of liability limitation?
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.