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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Informative) by Programmatic on Thursday March 27 2014, @12:32AM

    by Programmatic (2568) on Thursday March 27 2014, @12:32AM (#21839)

    I would be interested in seeing something like the following exchange:

    Gov't lawyer: So let me make sure I understand you. You don't feel like you should participate in gov't-mandatory health plans because they include birth control and/or the "morning after" pill, which is against your religion?
    Plaintiffs: Yes
    Gov't: And your religion is Christianity?
    Plaintiffs: Yes
    Gov't: And you believe that the Bible is the word of God, that Jesus is the son of God, and that Jesus was perfect?
    Plaintiffs: Yes
    Gov't: Do you have a preferred translation of the Bible?
    Plaintiffs: King James version (unimportant)
    Gov't: So let's see what Jesus had to say on this subject...
    Gov't gets out Bible of appropriate version, thumbs to Matthews 22:17...
          17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
          18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
          19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
          20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
          21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

    Seriously though: render unto Caesar, bitches!

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 27 2014, @11:03AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 27 2014, @11:03AM (#21982) Journal

    Out of curiosity what should be "rendered unto Caesar"? "Government mandated-health care" is not a tax or tribute, and hence, not relevant to that particular biblical verse. Plus, the other obvious rebuttal is that this is something which should be "rendered unto God" and hence, completely compatible with the Plaintiff's worldview.

    • (Score: 1) by Programmatic on Friday March 28 2014, @09:17PM

      by Programmatic (2568) on Friday March 28 2014, @09:17PM (#22708)

      The law of the land is requiring the businesses to pay for employee health care plans that include the objectionable items. Therefore, the money should be rendered accordingly.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 29 2014, @12:20PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 29 2014, @12:20PM (#22874) Journal

        That is not the point of the parable that was quoted though. Jesus was saying "pay your taxes", not respect laws that violate your religious beliefs (the implication, of course, being that paying taxes or tribute was not something that violated Christian beliefs). In that parable, he made a distinction between what was to be "rendered unto" Caesar and God, implying that there are things that he wouldn't give to Caesar.