Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday March 26 2014, @10:01PM   Printer-friendly
from the companies==people-er-does-not-compute dept.

gishzida writes:

"According to a Reuters report Supreme Court signals support for corporate religious claims, "The U.S. Supreme Court appeared poised on Tuesday to open the door to companies' religious-based objections to government regulations as justices weighed whether business owners can object to part of President Barack Obama's healthcare law. From the article:

During a 90-minute oral argument, 30 minutes more than usual, a majority of the nine justices appeared ready to rule that certain for-profit entities have the same religious rights to object as individuals do. A ruling along those lines would likely only apply to closely held companies. As in most close cases of late, Justice Anthony Kennedy will likely be the deciding vote. Based on his questions, it was unclear whether the court would ultimately rule that the companies had a right to an exemption from the contraception provision of President Barack Obama's 2010 Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare.

The dozens of companies involved in the litigation do not all oppose every type of birth control. Some object only to emergency contraceptive methods, such as the so-called morning-after pill, which they view as akin to abortion.

The case marks the second time Obamacare has featured prominently before the Supreme Court. In 2012, the court upheld by a 5-4 vote the constitutionality of the act's core feature requiring people to get health insurance. Although the case has no bearing on the overall healthcare law, it features its own volatile mix of religious rights and reproductive rights. A capacity crowd filled the marble courtroom, while outside hundreds of demonstrators, most of them women, protested loudly in an early spring snowstorm.

We already know that the SCOTUS thinks corporations are citizens, do you think the SCOTUS should allow corporations to have religious beliefs too?"

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by fliptop on Wednesday March 26 2014, @10:48PM

    by fliptop (1666) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @10:48PM (#21790) Journal

    that whole corporations are people idiocy

    How is it idiocy? If the gov't regulates corporations, they have the same rights to speak, protest, petition, etc. as the individual does.

    Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Insightful=1, Overrated=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @11:04PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 26 2014, @11:04PM (#21796)

    I concur, lets next give them the right to vote. At the same time we should uphold things like the death penalty against them.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by sgleysti on Wednesday March 26 2014, @11:16PM

      by sgleysti (56) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 26 2014, @11:16PM (#21804)

      Corporations, at least the wealthiest ones, have something far more powerful than the right to vote: they have the ability to buy politicians. It is they who are truly represented in the U.S. government.

    • (Score: 1) by dast on Wednesday March 26 2014, @11:29PM

      by dast (1633) on Wednesday March 26 2014, @11:29PM (#21814)

      Since corporations are the only entities SCOTUS seems to want to allow religious freedoms for, I say only corporations should be eligible for the death penalty. When I get the right to ignore the law on religious grounds, then, sure, make me eligible too.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday March 27 2014, @01:41AM

    by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Thursday March 27 2014, @01:41AM (#21857)

    How is it idiocy? If the gov't regulates corporations, they have the same rights to speak, protest, petition, etc. as the individual does.

    In the U.S. corporations only exist because they have legal status granted by states with acts of law, not by the Constitution. Their status can be revoked or changed by additional acts of law, and should the laws granting them their status be found as unconstitutional in courts of law their status can be altered as a result. Individuals have rights (on paper anyway) guaranteed in the Constitution that states cannot infringe upon. That seems to point to different status for corporations and individuals, regardless of whether corporations are composed of individuals or not.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 27 2014, @10:58AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 27 2014, @10:58AM (#21981) Journal

      Even so, you can't unconstitutionally violate rights just because certain people have a privilege. Perhaps you think that the TSA doesn't grope privileged commercial air passengers enough? Or government shouldn't be required to compensate privileged property owners when eminent domain is used?

  • (Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday March 27 2014, @09:13AM

    by sjames (2882) on Thursday March 27 2014, @09:13AM (#21958) Journal

    Corporations don't actually have any right to exist at all. Unlike actual people, they only exist by a grant from the government that they are in no way Constitutionally guaranteed.

    If the government didn't regulate corporations, they wouldn't exist. Instead the individual owners would have joint personal responsibility for it's actions. That would extend to financial responsibility.

  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 27 2014, @03:35PM

    by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday March 27 2014, @03:35PM (#22088)

    Your normal citizen does not have the right to take away other people's rights, though.

    Oh wait...we're talking about paying medical costs for contraceptives. Do we have a legal right to contraceptives? Hmm.

    Still. Isn't a box of The Pill once a month for...I dunno, 10 bucks? a hell of a lot less expensive for the company than maternity leave and medical expenses of actually giving birth? Or should I assume these are the same companies that give you the bare minimum legally required amount of maternity considerations or, even better, find a reason to fire you anyway.

    Stop being dicks, business owners.

    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"