SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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?"
(Score: 2, Interesting) by fliptop on Thursday March 27 2014, @03:29AM
What's stopping the "little guy" from forming a PAC, soliciting donations, and influencing any political entity w/ campaign donations or other largesse?
This seems silly, photo ops w/ businesses that bring in jobs and wealth are SOP for any politician. Any why shouldn't any business be part of the discussions and debate of the merits of any law that's regulating them?
Because that's not all they do. They also provide jobs and create wealth, something that is needed and vastly outweighs any occasional accidents. You make it sound like there's never any effort on the part of business to do what's right, they're always out to screw everyone over to make a buck. Every plant I've ever worked at stressed safety and the environment heavily. Employees were encouraged to follow rules and report unsafe or hazardous conditions immediately. I've never worked anywhere that asked its employees to look the other way.
But who gets to make that determination?
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Score: 1) by arulatas on Thursday March 27 2014, @02:30PM
"Every plant I've ever worked at stressed safety and the environment heavily. Employees were encouraged to follow rules and report unsafe or hazardous conditions immediately. I've never worked anywhere that asked its employees to look the other way."
Do you think this would be the case had there not been OSHA? Have you not read your history books with all of the problems with manufacturing plants until the rules and regulations were put into place fining and punishing businesses that broke these laws?
----- 10 turns around