« | »

SCOTUS: A For-Profit Company Can Hold Religious Views

From a distraught Associated Press:

Justices: Can’t make employers cover contraception

By MARK SHERMAN | June 30, 2014

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that some corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the new health law requirement that they cover contraceptives for women.

The most appalling thing about today’s decision is that we had to sit on the edge of our seats to find out if people who own a company can also be allowed to hold religious views under our laws. That is just amazing, given that we are supposed to have freedom of religion. This should have never been an issue.

The justices’ 5-4 decision is the first time that the high court has ruled that profit-seeking businesses can hold religious views under federal law.

Unless they make wedding cakes or take wedding photos.

And it means the Obama administration must search for a different way of providing free contraception to women who are covered under objecting companies’ health insurance plans.

How long do you think it will it take Obama to overturn this decision via some executive order? After all, we know he has no problem bypassing Congress. So why should bypassing the Supreme Court be any different?

In fact, we have seen how he has been using the bureaucracy to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizens United. That is what the IRS targeting and auditing of conservatives was really all about.

Contraception is among a range of preventive services that must be provided at no extra charge under the health care law that President Barack Obama signed in 2010 and the Supreme Court upheld two years later…

‘Preventative services’ they call it now. And never mind that some of the so-called ‘morning after pills’ known as Plan B can work up to several weeks after the egg is fertilized.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion. The court’s four liberal justices dissented.

The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations, like the Hobby Lobby chain of arts-and-craft stores, that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners…

Yes, we can’t have other business owners getting the crazy idea that they too have the freedom to practice their religion.

This article was posted by Steve Gilbert on Monday, June 30th, 2014. Comments are currently closed.

5 Responses to “SCOTUS: A For-Profit Company Can Hold Religious Views”

  1. Petronius

    Corporations are people, too.

    A business may be a single human being. It can be a small family corporation. It can be a family farm. Or it can be many people –– friends or strangers –– who band together by their voluntary action for a joint enterprise.

    Membership in the corporation can be exclusive (private) or open to the public. The purposes of the corporation may be almost anything –– business, religious, charitable, research, exploration and discovery, historic preservation, educational, athletic, or some combination of purposes. The business of a corporation may include publishing a web site such as S&L.

    America was founded as a business and religious enterprise. Most of the original American colonies were businesses chartered as joint stock companies. Plymouth was founded by the Plymouth Company, and Massachusetts by the Massachusetts Bay Company. Both companies were organized by Separatists or Puritans who sought religious freedom. Jamestown was founded by the London Company, a joint stock company. New Netherlands was founded by the Dutch West India Company. If these businesses had not been chartered by the English crown or the Dutch republic on generous terms, and supplied by their investors with plentiful resources, they could not have prospered and survived.

    Most small businesses of modern America are family corporations. Your doctor, dentist, accountant, or lawyer may be a corporation, or he may be a limited liability company (LLC), which, although technically not a corporation, has characteristics of both a corporation and a partnership. Walmart was founded by the Walton family, and –– although its stock is now publicly traded –– it remains the world’s largest family-owned business.

    Most big corporations started out small. Thomas Edison started General Electric. Henry Ford started Ford Motor. And Steve Jobs started Apple. John D. Rockefeller, his brother, and a few friends started the Standard Oil Company. From such small beginnings their corporation has grown into Exxon-Mobil (including also big chunks of BP and Chevron). Today Exxon-Mobil has almost half a million shareholders, and all of those shareholders are … people. And their investments and businesses have made possible our modern standard of living.

    Liberals of course argue that the public interest, expressed in terms of government force, must take precedence over the private interests –– even the religious interests –– of a corporation.

    I would note, however, that generally the members of a corporation are personally and financially invested in the corporation, and as a result they ordinarily are loyal to the corporation, to each other, and to its objectives. That’s because they have skin in the game.

    These circumstances may be contrasted to, say, citizenship in the United States, which is not voluntary but compulsory, and only half the members of the American Republic are invested as taxpayers, whereas the second half are moochers and parasites who live off the work of the first half. Only one percent are willing to serve in the military to defend the American Republic, while many more members of the US population (i.e., Progressives) are disloyal to the whole and actively support its enemies or seek to oppress other members through their control of government. Such antagonistic conditions could not long exist in a corporation.

    • captstubby

      “Liberals of course argue that the public interest,…over the private interests …of a corporation.”

      “Soviet” is derived from a Russian word signifying council, assembly, advice, harmony, concord.

      the Bolsheviks dominated with a leadership which demanded “all power to the soviets.” The Bolsheviks promised the workers a government run by workers’ councils to overthrow the bourgeoisie’s main government body ,
      The Bolsheviks and their allies came out with a program called “soviet government.” The soviet system was described as “a higher type of state” and “a higher form of democracy” which would “arouse the masses of the exploited toilers to the task of making new history.” Furthermore, it offered “to the oppressed toiling masses the opportunity to participate actively in the free construction of a new society”. According to Lenin, the author of these quotations, soviet rule “is nothing else than the organized form of the dictatorship of the proletariat.” A code of rules governing elections to the soviets was framed in March 1918, but the following classes were disqualified to vote: “Those who employ others for profit; those who live on incomes not derived from their own work — interest on capital, industrial enterprises or landed property; private business men, agents, middlemen; monks and priests of all denominations; ex-employees of the old police services and members of the Romanov dynasty; lunatics and criminals.”[

      With village and factory soviets as a base, there arose a vast pyramid of district, cantonal, county and regional soviets, each with its executive soviet. Over and above these stood the “All-Russian Soviet Congress,” which appointed an “All-Russian Central Executive Committee” of not more than 200 members, which in turn chooses the “Soviet of People’s Commissaries” — the Ministry.

      wikipedia

  2. canary

    Obama Rejects Supreme Court Ruling

    YahooNews: House to Justice Kennedy: No Thanks to Birth Control Advice

    by Liz Goodwin

    Secondly, White House press secretary Josh Earnest appeared to reject the idea entirely at Monday’s press briefing.

    He mentioned that the administration has offered accommodations to nonprofit companies, but said, “We believe that the owners of for-profit companies should not be allowed to assert their personal religious views to deny their employees federally mandated benefits.”

    Earnest said the administration will “work with Congress” to come up with a solution.

    http://news.yahoo.com/white-ho.....50068.html

    He should have to pay for the Greenes out of his own pocket if he does a “click click click” and takes the writing out of his own massive bill.

    • canary

      A little research and Hobby Lobby/Mardell has a non-profit organization on the side that aids the poor.

      Both stores sell Christian products

      I think they have shown their religious views beyond a reason of doubt, and for decades prior to Obama’s health
      care.

    • canary

      Obama rejecting the Supreme Court Ruling, which as above I stated this absolutely was not a situation of someone
      trying to get out of the commie health care based on religion, but truly is against their religion.

      Also, this company gave health benefits and good pay well above minimum wage.

      I use the word communism frequently, and aside Obama Care this more communism as this is not the only
      issue Obama is rejecting that the Supreme Court ruled on.

      So, it is fair to say to say Obama is leading like Hitler.

      And Republican leadership is so afraid to use Socialism, when they should say communism.

      After all I was taught in school that there was nothing wrong with communism, that they word simply meant
      “a community”.

      So, you can imagine what schools are teaching students now.

      You darn well, if Muslims had said birth control was against their religion it wouldn’t have been questioned.
      But, it’s not against their religion and neither is abortion.

      Geez, these pills and IUD cost as much as childbirth use too.

      I don’t think this is a Catholic company, so that would mean other religions are against IUD which don’t prevent
      contraception.

      A picture paints a thousand words. For the first time I’ve seen commercials showing unborn baby’s little bitty
      in the womb.

      I think knowledge is important and could prevent more girls from getting pregnant.

      My gosh they have implanted birth control and birth control that makes a woman have her montly period even.

      And I’m guessing this cost a fortune, and ObamaCare must pay for it too.




« Front Page | To Top
« | »