[speechlesstx]

I would imagine that under corporate personhood you would be correct.The sisters aren't the corporation the corporation is the person.

They are non-profit corporation, not a business. They don't trade in goods or services they minister to the poor. The "corporate" title doesn't mean they cede their first amendment rights.

[Tuttyd]

They are non-profit corporation, not a business. They don't trade in goods or services they minister to the poor. The "corporate" title doesn't mean they cede their first amendment rights.

It doesn't really matter if they are non-profit. They can be still registered as a corporation. Incorporation as far as the sisters are concerned would mean they are registered as a legal entity. This would mean they have legal status as a company. The key feature of corporate personhood is that generally speaking the sisters cannot be sued for individual work done while they are incorporated.

[speechlesstx]

I understand the protection from legal action against them personally, I made that point earlier. It does not mean they've ceded their first amendment rights. Religious freedom is not conditional on whether one is incorporated.

[Tuttyd]

I understand the protection from legal action against them personally, I made that point earlier. It does not mean they've ceded their first amendment rights. Religious freedom is not conditional on whether or not one is incorporated.

You told Tal to drop the corporate crap and that the nuns are the corporation. You then admonished him for being ridiculous. As I pointed out before you are not correct. The nuns are not the corporation, the corporation for the purpose of this exercise is the individual.

The relevant corporate Acts don't take anything from the First Amendment.

[speechlesstx]

The relevant corporate Acts don't take anything from the First Amendment.

I think that's what I've been saying from the beginning. It's ridiculous to force nuns to buy contraceptive coverage in violation of their beliefs, their protected right, which is not canceled out because the group is incorporated. These guys think that incorporation means they're a business and they just have to suck it up and do as Uncle Sam tells them in spite of their constitutional rights.

[Tuttyd]

I think that's what I've been saying from the beginning. It's ridiculous to force nuns to buy contraceptive coverage in violation of their beliefs, their protected right, which is not canceled out because the group is incorporated. These guys think that incorporation means they're a business and they just have to suck it up and do as Uncle Sam tells them in spite of their constitutional rights.

Yes, what you have been saying from the beginning is in relation to the First Amendment. I far as I can see it is a reasonable argument. However, I don't recall any arguments you have put forward in relation to corporations, incorporation and corporate personhood.

The exception to this is you abashment of those who proposed a "corporate crap" explanation. Yes, the First Amendment is obviously relevant to the issue at hand. It is equally obvious that you were not born yesterday. Despite this fact corporation and incorporation is also relevant to the discussion.

[speechlesstx]

The corporate crap is a response to their ridiculous arguments for years that incorporation means their rights are irrelevant, that the right to contraception coverage trumps the first amendment because they're incorporated. That's a crap argument, thousands of churches and non-profits are incorporated for legal reasons, they don't cease to become a church or a charity because they're incorporated do they?

[Tuttyd]

The corporate crap is a response to their ridiculous arguments for years that incorporation means their rights are irrelevant, that the right to contraception coverage trumps the first amendment because they're incorporated. That's a crap argument, thousands of churches and non-profits are incorporated for legal reasons, they don't cease to become a church or a charity because they're incorporated do they?

I think you have probably answered your own question. The legal argument would probably end up being that it is the 'persona', not the individual that is adhering to the mandate. Therefore, the individual is not being asked to violate their rights. Corporations as a persons in law don't have religious beliefs.

I don't particularly like this argument because I am opposed to the idea of corporate personhood being considered as having some First Amendment. Rights. Nonetheless, SCOTUS has determined otherwise. I also think that their decision has created a rod for your backs.

As I have said many times before, I think that people are forced to go against their religious beliefs, regardless of the legal status of the argument.

[speechlesstx]

Just think of all the food stamps that could have been issued...

Obama Commits $320 Million in Aid for Bankrupt Detroit

50 years of progressive policies turned Detroit into a third world territory, turned the country's city with the highest per capita income into a wasteland - and the left is throwing a fit over a food stamp cut that is justified while DC starts pouring more money into their failed experiment so they can start it all over again.

SMH...

[Tuttyd]

The corporate crap is a response to their ridiculous arguments for years that incorporation means their rights are irrelevant, that the right to contraception coverage trumps the first amendment because they're incorporated. That's a crap argument, thousands of churches and non-profits are incorporated for legal reasons, they don't cease to become a church or a charity because they're incorporated do they?

My previous response to your post was largely hypothetical. However, I would like to look at the actual contraception mandate. I thought religious organizations that had a objection to the mandate could opt out and let the insurance company pay for employee contraception?

[tomder55]

That is not an opt out... that is a transparent ploy .Do you really think the insurance companies absorb the costs ? Since the contraception is still mandated ,then the religious institution that is providing the insurance is effectively providing the coverage regardless of their doctrinal objections to artificial contraception.

[Tuttyd]

that is not an opt out ....that is a transparent ploy .Do you really think the insurance companies absorb the costs ? Since the contraception is still mandated ,then the religious institution that is providing the insurance is effectively providing the coverage regardless of their doctrinal objections to artificial contraception.

Well, I guess if a person feels the state is forcing them to act against their beliefs then for all intention purposes it is real.

Obviously I am not a lawyer but I see the problem going back as the first corporate personhood rulings made by SCOTUS. Subsequent rulings have strengthened this nonsensical persona.

Corporations are not exempt from government regulations and this is possibly related to the 14 Amendment. In a similar way corporations cannot claim to have a religious objection anymore than it can claim to be able to vote. However, they can claim other 1st Amendment rights.

I see part of the problem being that only a real person can have a religious objection to the mandate, not a corporation. I would imagine that the government would argue it is entitled to regulate healthcare via corporatist definitions.

In the case of health care I think corporate personhood has come back to haunt you.

[tomder55]

So your argument is that if a religious institution incorporates it forfeits it's rights ;or maybe your argument is that a corporation by definition is completely dependent to the dictates of the state and only has the rights the state sees fit to deem . I see that model as tyranny and nonsensical .

[NeedKarma]

You realize that as an individual you have to follow the laws of the state. Is that "tyranny and nonsensical "?

[Tuttyd]

so your argument is that if a religious institution incorporates it forfeits it's rights

An institution of any type cannot have beliefs. Only the people who belong to that institution have beliefs. To say otherwise is to create a fallacy of composition. It is a fiction. However, when it comes to government regulations of corporations it is legal fiction.

or maybe your argument is that a corporation by definition is completely dependent to the dictates of the state and only has the rights the state sees fit to deem . I see that model as tyranny and nonsensical .

Welcome to the Tyranny of Australia

[paraclete]

Welcome to the Tyranny of Australia

I know what you have said tutt is said dirisively in debate but this is no tyranny, in this land you can have medical insurance or you can not have it, those who choose not to have it pay a uniform levy to cover the cost of their care, should they need it and for this they can be treated for free should they choose to do so. The poor and the unemployed pay nothing.The tyranny lies across the Pacific where apparently it is illegal not to have medical insurance and those who don't will pay an increasing percentage of their income year by year, which contributes nothing to their health care costs

I know which tyranny I choose to live under, a truly democratic nation which cares for its people

[tomder55]

You realize that as an individual you have to follow the laws of the state. Is that "tyranny and nonsensical "?

If the laws violate rights then yes they are tyrannical. To force religious employers to provide contraceptive coverage ,directly or indirectly ,knowing it violates their doctrine objections is indeed tyranny.

[paraclete]

This is a furphy, the use of these contraceptives is not mandated nor is other forms of coverage, it is part of a general policy and what has been done is to say you can't write your own because we want some form of uniformity otherwise you will have people opting out of coverage and then clogging the system

There are religious nutters everywhere and this is one time they are obvious, they should take their new Pope's advice and get focused on important matters

[tomder55]

I did not say the use of contraceptive was mandatory .I said the coverage was. I am also not interested in 'uniformity ' of coverage . There is where most of the problems lie. It is all these mandated coverages that drive up the cost in the 1st place.

[talaniman]

It's the insurance industry that is mandated to offer contraceptives as a basic part of its health care plans. The premium cost is the same whether you use it, or not. Be aware that insurances are regulated by the states and so are the exemptions a church can get, and every state has there own. Look it up if you don't believe me.

The IRS is the one who gives exemptions for federal tax purposes. No you don't give up your rights by incorporating, but you do fall under a guideline and the laws that affect ALL the corporations. In short it's the insured and the insurer buying and paying for contraceptives, not the church, or the nuns who work for the church or the corporation.

Now some churches have rejected the carve out or accommodation that was recommended by the feds that allowed individuals to deal directly with the providers for contraceptive coverage, I suspect because it made no difference in their premium costs, so it comes down to a corporation suing for a special policy that reflects its religious views, and the insurance companies have already agreed to it. So has the government.

So what are they suing for? And lets be very clear, all religious organizations are not suing as a whole, just some individual religious organizations. My opinion, expanding the rights of religious corporations opens the door for the denial of services and benefits of employees to those organizations. If CEO's can make employees adhere to, or be subject to their religious beliefs through policy, or payment then they themselves are violating the rights of ordinary citizens.