The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: DuckDodgers on December 02, 2013, 03:57:45 PM
-
I've been reading the articles about the fight of for-profit businesses, specifically Hobby Lobby, against the healthcare mandate to provide both control. In most cases they are only fighting over the morning after pill and other such after thought type contraceptives, but I did read about one company trying to fight against it all because the owners are Catholic.
I don't want to get into the debate that there shouldn't be such a mandate in the first place, I'm more curious what everyone's take is on the religious freedom of for-profit business. Should the owners of a for profit business be able to declare that business as a specific religion? Should this declaration be sufficient to exempt the business from mandates which go against the religion? Do you think it is right to subject employees of a for-profit business to the religious beliefs of the owners, specifically when the product being sold is not religious in nature?
-
Can you link us some of these articles? I haven't heard about this, but from what you stated this sounds like a pretty interesting case.
-
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/11/26/supreme-court-obamacare-contraception-religion-corporation/3700813/
Here is one article. There are plenty more which can be found through Google. It sounds like Hobby Lobby is essentially the spokes person for these religious for-profits.
-
I've been reading the articles about the fight of for-profit businesses, specifically Hobby Lobby, against the healthcare mandate to provide both control. In most cases they are only fighting over the morning after pill and other such after thought type contraceptives, but I did read about one company trying to fight against it all because the owners are Catholic.
I don't want to get into the debate that there shouldn't be such a mandate in the first place, I'm more curious what everyone's take is on the religious freedom of for-profit business. Should the owners of a for profit business be able to declare that business as a specific religion? Should this declaration be sufficient to exempt the business from mandates which go against the religion? Do you think it is right to subject employees of a for-profit business to the religious beliefs of the owners, specifically when the product being sold is not religious in nature?
First of all the mandate has alredey been pased so TO FLIPPIN BAD FOR THEM! How can you say your a Christian when you dont even beleive in natural rights! They refuse to acept the basic abortion and contraceptive rights and are blinded by there ignorence and sexism. These poor people need these rights!!!!!!! Look people want to live there lives so lets get real: NOBODYS GOING TO WANT TO WAIT FOR MARRIAGE!!! Today more and more young people are playing hanky panky so do you reley want there whole lives to be ruined all because they couldnt get protection? Safe sex is vital to societey and all churches should promote it they need to end there ignorence. Wake up and smell the coffee! And because they cant get protection they can get pregnent and theyl need an abortion but crazey fundamentalist conservastupit radicals are trying to prevent this and call these women terible names. And as we known to well some women cant aford abortions and need taxpayer money in order to get it. So whats the solution? TAX IT!!!!!!!!!!! Why cant we just help our felow citizen out and let her pay for her abortion. No where in the bible does it say a women cant get an abortion let alone contraceptives. Idiots are what they are and sexists and rascists to. The "baby" isnt even a living thing its a COLLECTION OF TISUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And they say that women are "killing" the "baby"? There the ones who are killing the woman by ruining her life all because she made a mistake!!!!!!!!!! The republistupit party is full of hate. This is a WAR ON WOMEN and we must defend woman and make sure they have the necesarey coverage concerning this wether these people are pro-"life" or pro-choice. Sickens me!!!
-
Corporations shouldn't be exempt. The only way a corporation should be able to exempt a mandate is if all the employees held the same belief. This, however, also has to account for potential future employees, and if you say "only people of this religious belief may work here" then the company is going to run into Equal Employment Opportunity issues.
-
I didn't think Hobby Lobby was a corporation. I'll have to check into this but I did not think they were an openly traded public company.
-
I may have the wrong terminology (although the link you provided called it a corporation as well) but I meant it as any business that isn't family owned and operated or is but hires outside-the-family employees. Obviously, any company with 50+ employees, which are the ones affected by the mandate, is hiring more than just family members.
-
What about a business that only provides religious services/products, one such as Lifeway which is a Christian bookstore?
-
I don't think that would matter as long as the possibility remained that employees could have opposing beliefs. To deny their workers contraception coverage on religious grounds just because it provides religious services/products is like saying waiters at an organic health foods store can't eat fast food because the business they work for provides a certain dietary product/service and the business itself does not agree with eating fast food.
-
However, a Christian store which provides only Christian based products is obviously stating that they are a Christian store, almost akin to a church just without the worship.
-
If it's not a center of worship then what really gives them the right to claim religious exemption from the law? They're not a part of the Church itself. This would be like saying a private tax accountant should receive the same benefits as a government employee just because they are a citizen under that government and provide a government-related service.
Should a person be exempt from interest rates on mortgages, or businesses exempt from loan interests, if those parties claimed religious objections against the charging of interest? The point of this paragraph is to add the thought that a ruling in favor of company exemptions could lead to a lot more Pastafarian-like groups setting up shop just to avoid government mandates they don't want to follow.
-
When a business caters specifically to a group, it could very easily be said that the business is part of that group. Religious education institutions enjoy the exemption from the Obamacare mandate on birth control. These institutions teach and employ secular people. Why would they be exempt but a store which caters only Christian items not be exempt?
-
I'm split on this issue. On one hand I think that a corporation who finds it religiously offensive to provide contraceptives (which is a authentic reason, I think) should not be required to. Of course, the flip side is that it would be too easy for any company to claim they are a Christian company, saving money from not having to buy contraceptives.
I suppose there could be guidelines, but I still feel the system would be abused no matter what. Hobby Lobby, from my experience, would be a genuine case for this, but I suppose my final verdict would be to require everyone to comply regardless, as any sort of rules governing this could easily be avoided.
-
A true corporation, one publicly traded and owned, should have no religious protection because you don't have one unifying choice from the owners. A privately owned company has the luxury of having a single owner or close nit ownership group so it could identify a religion. That being said, I don't think it is right for Hobby Lobby to receive religious exemption because the owners are religious while the store in its day to day operation is nonreligious. They may donate profits to religious organizations, but at the end of the day they are selling craft items, not religious items.
-
When a business caters specifically to a group, it could very easily be said that the business is part of that group. Religious education institutions enjoy the exemption from the Obamacare mandate on birth control. These institutions teach and employ secular people. Why would they be exempt but a store which caters only Christian items not be exempt?
If the educational institutions in question provide worship service, then they have a right to claim to be a part of that group and receive the exemptions; otherwise they do not have that right.
Additionally, the schools provide an educational service that is conjoined with teachings in the church. Stores like Lifeway do not aim to educate, they aim to profit from material goods. That being said, stores themselves shouldn't be able to provide worship services and be granted the same benefits, because it would be too easy for stores to do this with the intention of receiving tax breaks, healthcare exemptions, and the like.
There needs to be a clear line drawn between a business that provides a strictly educational service and a business that sells goods. To additionally clarify, an educational goods store that may sell teaching supplies for a christian school counts as the latter, not the former.
-
As far as I know, the only thing these types of stores are asking for is exemption for the birth control mandate due to conflicts with their religious views. They aren't asking for the tax breaks of nonprofits, nor would they receive them because they are not nonprofits. The question really because, does the owner's religious views translate to the business. This is obvious for sole proprietors, not so obvious for corporations.
-
I would support a sole proprietor having immunity to this part of the law if they identify as religious. I suppose a larger company would work as well if they specifically sold religious products. (Bibles, ect.)
-
The main purpose of a corporation is to run the business and make money, and they function in a manner similar to the government. We shouldn't count corporations as people. We should treat them more like machines desinged to perform specific tasks.
-
Corporations run nothing like governments. There is nothing that runs like a government except another government. Why shouldn't a corporation be counted as a person when they can have a lawsuit filed against them like a person? Corporations are set up to protect their owners from liability, with the company taking on that liability instead. If the company can assume liability and be sued, they should be considered an individual in legal terms.
-
I guess government was too broad. I was referring to how decisions are voted upon in a (somewhat) democratic fashion by the shareholders, and also in that they are designed to perform a primary task (making a profit) and the necessary actions required to perform that primary task.
Also, it is possible to file suit against the government, and the department to which claims were filed against must pay any due compensation rather than any employees or department heads themsleves. You can also file suit against a school. It doesn't mean any of these institutions should be granted religious authority for the sole reason that they can be sued. Consumers may file suit against the corporations because it's a means to protect and compensate the consumers from any defective or hazardous products, environments, etc. Likewise, the corporations can defend themselves in court in order to protect themselves from losing money due to having to pay out compensation for bogus claims.
-
I was bringing up the lawsuit aspect as an example of why a corporation should be considered an individual entity in and of itself, not as a reason for any religious protections.
-
Whew! This is a toughie! Although I'm a Jew, I got 3 degrees (2 BA's & 1 MA) from a Catholic university. The question isn't whether abortion or birth control is moral or not. That's not what we're debating. The debate is whether someone should be forced to pay for someone else's moral choices when they disagree w/ those choices. I have thought about this @ length, & I think I have to come down on saying no. A person or persons should not be obligated to provide birth control or abortions to another person when they oppose it for religious reasons. To force them to is to make a mockery of the 1st Amendment.
-
We aren't talking about a person, we are talking about businesses.
-
I understand that. But businesses are run by people. Those people shouldn't be obligated to provide for things that run contrary to their conscience.
-
Sure, in a sole proprietorship where the owner takes 100% liability. What about in an LLC or corporation where the owner assumes no responsibility from the company?
-
Well, that makes it more dicey. I would have to examine the situation 1st.
-
Actually, on thinking about this further, in theory any corporation could be exempt from this. Corporations are technically people in the United States, due to an interpretation of the 14th Amendment. There have been situations where courts have upheld the right of the 1st Amendment to a corporation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission)
I'm not sure if this is the norm everywhere, but if a corporation is considered to have First Amendment rights, then in theory they could claim as a corporation a requirement to provide contraceptives is a violation of their rights.
Here's another article about this issue, specifically with Hobby Lobby
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/feisal-g-mohamed/does-hobby-lobby-have-a-f_b_4374175.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/feisal-g-mohamed/does-hobby-lobby-have-a-f_b_4374175.html)
-
For-profit businesses that have no relations to religion should not be able to declare themselves a particular religion:
1) Workers may not be of the same religion.
2) If the business tries to hire just Christians, equal employment comes into place, so they can't do that.
If the business is related to religion, then it still shouldn't. Let's say a business prints Bibles and wants to hire people. 5 people apply, but 3 of them are non-Christians that need a job. Since the business is for profit, even though it is religious in nature, they still would have to hire the non-Christians if they fit the criteria for the job.
-
Whew! This is a toughie! Although I'm a Jew, I got 3 degrees (2 BA's & 1 MA) from a Catholic university. The question isn't whether abortion or birth control is moral or not. That's not what we're debating. The debate is whether someone should be forced to pay for someone else's moral choices when they disagree w/ those choices. I have thought about this @ length, & I think I have to come down on saying no. A person or persons should not be obligated to provide birth control or abortions to another person when they oppose it for religious reasons. To force them to is to make a mockery of the 1st Amendment.
What about Jehovas Witnesses and blood transfusions/organ transplants?
-
Well, they don't oppose organ transplants. The other point is well taken though!
-
We're not just debating whether companies can get out of paying for contraception and the like, as the decision one way or the other would set a precedent for any future employment requirement that someone disagrees with on religious grounds. If they can be exempt for paying for contraception, why shouldn't they be exempt from hiring gay people or sackingpeople who have sex out of wedlock?
If companies are operating as companies then they should be obliged to follow every letter of employment law. The same goes for Christian bookshops or other overtly religious stores. The only exception I would grant is if they were openly not-for-profit charity stores.
-
Well, they don't oppose organ transplants. The other point is well taken though!
IO thought they did, but I didn't look it up.
I believe followers of Shintoism do oppose it but none the less, the broad thrust of the point was as you suspected that it's a somewhat iffy stance to take in a multi denominational, multi cultural society.
-
What about a business that only provides religious services/products, one such as Lifeway which is a Christian bookstore?
Are you suggesting shutting down halal food outlets?
I should be free to sell anything I want as long as it doesn't put others at risk. If I want to sell statues of Zeus or light sabres, it's up to me.
-
What are you talking about?
-
What about a business that only provides religious services/products, one such as Lifeway which is a Christian bookstore?
Are you suggesting shutting down halal food outlets?
I should be free to sell anything I want as long as it doesn't put others at risk. If I want to sell statues of Zeus or light sabres, it's up to me.
True, but I'm not sure how big the market is for decorative lighting displays for swords...
-
Thork, please understand the issue before jumping in like that. Nobody was arguing what someone can or can't sell; we were arguing if companies can claim religious exemption to health care mandates. DuckDogers' post was pointing out that some companies sell Christian-related items, and asked of they should be considered for religious exemption.
-
Whew! This is a toughie! Although I'm a Jew, I got 3 degrees (2 BA's & 1 MA) from a Catholic university. The question isn't whether abortion or birth control is moral or not. That's not what we're debating. The debate is whether someone should be forced to pay for someone else's moral choices when they disagree w/ those choices. I have thought about this @ length, & I think I have to come down on saying no. A person or persons should not be obligated to provide birth control or abortions to another person when they oppose it for religious reasons. To force them to is to make a mockery of the 1st Amendment.
What about Jehovas Witnesses and blood transfusions/organ transplants?
In the same vein, Scientologists don't believe in psychiatry, so could a corporation deny access to mental health services because they claim to be Scientologist?
-
Scientology shouldn't even be classified as a religion, sadly it is.
-
Hey! It's based just as much on fact as any other religion, and they do not sanction murder, human sacrifice or genital mutilation. I think Scoentology is one of the better ones!
-
Scientology harasses former members.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2525058/Ex-Scientology-leader-Marty-Rathbun-sues-church-harassment.html
The link details how they spied on their former church leader Mary Rathbun, and at the end of the article it comments that the Church of Scientology has a history of harassing anyone they feel threatens their religion.
-
Scientology shouldn't even be classified as a religion, sadly it is.
Why not?
-
ITT: People on the Internet express their disdain for Scientology. So brave.
-
Because Tom Cruise.
-
While "religion" is a difficult term to define, insofar as it is a belief system that attempts to explain the supernatural and humanity's relation to it, I would say that Scientology is indeed a religion. Being stupid doesn't stop it from being a religion.
-
Scientology shouldn't even be classified as a religion, sadly it is.
Why not?
A parliamentary report classifies Scientology as a cult in France. They require a fee to join a religion, an absurd idea if I've ever heard one. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who speaks out against them they track down, follow, or otherwise attempt to discredit. They even went after the creators of South Park after they made fun of Scientology in an episode.
Here's the source for the South Park deal, let me know if you want any other ones.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/24/church-of-scientology-investigate-south-park_n_1027538.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/24/church-of-scientology-investigate-south-park_n_1027538.html)
If you want more information on their exploits, just search "scientology controversies" on Wikipedia. If for some reason you don't trust Wikipedia, there's still over a hundred sources on the bottom of the page.
-
I'm pretty sure that virtually everyone on the Internet knows how aggressive and loony Scientology is. But again, that doesn't stop it being a religion.
-
The Christian God requires a fee, in the form of a tithe, in order to be in his good grace. Requiring money is not the marker of a cult. Scientology is founded on faith and faith alone, much like a religion.
-
The Christian God requires a fee, in the form of a tithe, in order to be in his good grace. Requiring money is not the marker of a cult. Scientology is founded on faith and faith alone, much like a religion.
I think you mean catholic.
And it's entirely voluntary these days.
-
Other sects of Christianity require a tithe be given, they cleverly call it an offering though. While it's "voluntary" the bible still tells its followers to give to the church, which basically means that if you don't donate then you are not following the bible.
-
Other sects of Christianity require a tithe be given, they cleverly call it an offering though. While it's "voluntary" the bible still tells its followers to give to the church, which basically means that if you don't donate then you are not following the bible.
Chapter and verse?
-
Other sects of Christianity require a tithe be given, they cleverly call it an offering though. While it's "voluntary" the bible still tells its followers to give to the church, which basically means that if you don't donate then you are not following the bible.
Chapter and verse?
1 Corinthians 16:2, 2 Corinthians 9:7, Acts 2:44-47, Acts 4:34-35, Acts 5:1-11. That last one is especially explicit. God actually kills a couple for holding some money back.
-
Other sects of Christianity require a tithe be given, they cleverly call it an offering though. While it's "voluntary" the bible still tells its followers to give to the church, which basically means that if you don't donate then you are not following the bible.
Chapter and verse?
1 Corinthians 16:2, 2 Corinthians 9:7, Acts 2:44-47, Acts 4:34-35, Acts 5:1-11. That last one is especially explicit. God actually kills a couple for holding some money back.
Thanks.
It's been a couple of decades since i read the whole thing and I didn't fancy slogging through all that tripe again.
The story telling really goes downhill after the old testament.
EDIT: most of those are about sharing money in a community and giving to the poor not to the rich church, although I grant you Paul was a cunning bugger on that front, way to twist Jesus' supposed teachings.
-
A parliamentary report classifies Scientology as a cult in France. They require a fee to join a religion, an absurd idea if I've ever heard one.
At least it's just money they want and not my foreskin in order to join.
-
A parliamentary report classifies Scientology as a cult in France. They require a fee to join a religion, an absurd idea if I've ever heard one.
At least it's just money they want and not my foreskin in order to join.
Catholicism wants your eternal soul so...
-
A parliamentary report classifies Scientology as a cult in France. They require a fee to join a religion, an absurd idea if I've ever heard one.
At least it's just money they want and not my foreskin in order to join.
Catholicism wants your eternal soul so...
Do they also want my wings? Or my tail?