[Phantom Hoover]

It is indeed "Only in part" because getting pregnant is not a sure thing even without contraceptives, and a female (unfortunately) does not get to decide whether she's especially fertile on a given day before having sex.  There's a huge amount of chance involved with it, and as such, that analogy is entirely accurate.

No, that analogy is completely ****ing bogus. You know why? You need to have sex to get pregnant, you can get cancer without any exposure to carcinogens. Don't smoke? You can still get lung cancer. Don't have sex? You're not getting pregnant, barring divine intervention. And you know what? When someone throws an argument that stupid at you, I can understand why you'd be arguing in bad form and bad faith.

[MP-Ryan]

It is indeed "Only in part" because getting pregnant is not a sure thing even without contraceptives, and a female (unfortunately) does not get to decide whether she's especially fertile on a given day before having sex.  There's a huge amount of chance involved with it, and as such, that analogy is entirely accurate.

No, that analogy is completely ****ing bogus. You know why? You need to have sex to get pregnant, you can get cancer without any exposure to carcinogens. Don't smoke? You can still get lung cancer. Don't have sex? You're not getting pregnant, barring divine intervention. And you know what? When someone throws an argument that stupid at you, I can understand why you'd be arguing in bad form and bad faith.

Except when and if you have sex are not always controllable, nor is the getting pregnant from it (as Scotty said).  Similarly, when and if you are exposed to carcinogens is in many ways uncontrollable, as is the getting cancer from it.  Biologically, the two are remarkably similar in this.  Having sex is usually necessary to getting pregnant (wave hello to IVF, however); carcinogen exposure is usually required to actually develop cancer (cancers that develop without carcinogen exposure are limited mainly to cases of predisposition; if you'd like to talk more about cancer generally, start a new thread; genetics was the subject of one of my degrees and is a personal passion I'm happy to discuss, just not here).

Regardless, KyadCK claimed that pregnancy "plays no role in your health as a human being" (his exact words), and by the very same logic he presented I assert that cancer then plays no role in your health as a human being.  Obviously, I disagree on both counts.  Biologically, the comparison is quite sound in this thread's context.  The analogy is neither "****ing bogus" nor "stupid," as any 2nd year molecular biology student could easily demonstrate for you.

[Phantom Hoover]

I... you know what? Fine. This is obviously just one of those 'arguments' where you're just out to prove to yourself that you're right. I could keep picking holes in your analogy, but... we both know that was never the point of it in the first place.

[MP-Ryan]

I... you know what? Fine. This is obviously just one of those 'arguments' where you're just out to prove to yourself that you're right. I could keep picking holes in your analogy, but... we both know that was never the point of it in the first place.

Obviously the analogy isn't perfect (no analogy is).  Cancer is, however, about as close as you can get to an analogue of pregnancy.  You are correct that the analogy was never the point of the discussion, though; it's purpose was solely to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the notion that contraceptives and pregnancy play "no role in your health as a human being," on which it would seem you and I agree.

[Black Wolf]

[modhat]This is a terrible thread. Both sides are trying to win without actually acknowledging the weaknesses of their arguments. That said, one side is pretty clearly worse than the other in this regard.

Kyad: If you want to be taken seriously, respond to MP's points, don't just keep repeating your assertions.

MP, NGTM-1R: If Kyad's refusing to debate on your terms, then tell him what you think of his arguments then be the bigger men and walk away. Don't keep ratcheting things up until they explode and we have to come in and start moderating people.

Some self restraint people?

[Goober5000]

I continue to be amazed at the volume of posts HLP can generate in a short amount of time.

Let me try to respond to some of the points on page 1...

Versus you apparently feel an employer is free to choose whatever medical benefits they want to provide to their employees based solely on the employers religious convictions.  Can't wait until some Jehova's Witnesses decide not to insure all procedures related to blood transfusions for their employees - I'm curious what your tune will be then.

The same as it is now.  They shouldn't be forced to violate their religious principles.  If I want my insurance to cover blood transfusions, I'll simply look for another employer.

Regardless of whether a corporation itself has the right to freedom of religious belief, its employers and owners most certainly do.  And its employers and owners are the ones who would be forced to implement this unjust regulation.

No, they wouldn't.  The owner may own the corporation, but the corporation is the entity to which the law applies.  If the owner doesn't like that their corporation has to comply with certain laws, they are free to unincorporate themselves and take all the business risks as individuals with sole proprietorships, in which case they may argue that such benefits violate their rights (and I agree with them then).

Business owners cannot have it both ways - you cannot have all the protections of incorporating a business to legally protect yourself, and then try to say that laws shouldn't apply to your corporation because of your individual rights.  The whole purpose of incorporation is to legally dissociate the person from the business.

Just because a corporation is a legal entity separate from its owners and officers does not mean that it is wholly disassociated from them.  Restrictions and requirements on a corporation imply that the people who belong to that corporation are going to have to modify their behavior in some manner.  For example, if the corporation has to follow ITAR regulations against selling satellite technology to China, then a salesman can't claim immunity from prosecution on the grounds that the law applies to the corporation and not to him.  Or, to use a more timely example, if a corporation commits financial fraud, then that opens the owners up to criminal prosecution.  The owners are not immune simply because the corporation pays a fine.

If you agree that certain penalties must apply to owners if a corporation violates the law, then you must also agree that the legal rights of owners bubble up to establish boundaries on what a corporation can be required to do.

That article is long on the rhetoric and short on the facts.  It blasts evangelicals for hypocrisy (and to be fair, there is a lot of hypocrisy in the Church nowadays) but it completely omits the reason for the change. 

No, actually he doesn't. He elaborates on the reason at length. (So that the Protestant side of the religious right could stir up support against Obamacare, because they have pacted with the Republican Party and signed it in blood. Yes, the imagery is intentional, and appropriate.)

Perhaps I should have said it another way.  He cites Merritt's reason for evangelical behavior, elaborates on it at length, and attacks that.  But nowhere does he mention the reason claimed by evangelicals themselves.

The reason is simply that many people who don't have a problem with condoms or the pill do have a problem with the morning-after pill.  The classical pill inhibits ovulation so that there is never an egg to fertilize.  The morning-after pills disrupt the pregnancy (usually by inhibiting implantation) after fertilization has taken place.  That constitutes abortion.  Naturally, those who have a problem with abortion would have a problem with those medications.

Your statement would make sense if that was the stance being taken by Hobby Lobby, and by extension you. It is not. Hobby Lobby doesn't want to pay for the pill either and has taken the stance it's abortion in open court.

I'm making a distinction between "the pill", i.e. the one that inhibits ovulation, and the morning-after or week-after pills.  From everything I've read, Hobby Lobby makes the same distinction.  See here for example:

The company does provide preventive contraceptives through its insurance plan, but claims the “morning-after” and “week-after” pills also required under the mandate are tantamount to abortion and violate their religious belief that life begins at conception.

If you're saying that Hobby Lobby is claiming, "in open court", that the classical pill is abortion, then I'm going to need to see your source.

It's also wrong. An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. It thus requires a pregnancy to be an abortion. By no stretch of logic is it possible to claim that pregnancy begins until implantation, because asserting otherwise requires some kind of medical magic on the part of the female body equivalent to Todd Akin's legitimate rape.

And, well... Life and hence pregnancy begins at conception is an inherently Catholic argument, though at least more medically sound than the one you're attempting to make.

I'm wondering by what stretch of logic you thought that I claimed pregnancy begins at implantation.  I'm operating on the "life and hence pregnancy begins at conception" premise, which is shared by many evangelicals as well as Catholics.  The "morning-after" pill operates by inhibiting implantation after the egg has been fertilized.  Since the egg cannot be implanted, the pregnancy -- which exists at this point -- is disrupted.  By the same token, if the mother uses the "week-after" pill, the pregnancy is disrupted even if the egg has already implanted.

[Phantom Hoover]

So... you'd be OK with, say, Quakers refusing to pay the portion of their taxes that goes towards military expenditure?

[MP-Ryan]

The same as it is now.  They shouldn't be forced to violate their religious principles.  If I want my insurance to cover blood transfusions, I'll simply look for another employer.

Well, at least you're consistent, though I still think it's wrong and economically bad policy.  Did you happen to look at the link and follow-up I showed to KyadCK?  I'm curious if the terrible economics of that positions have any impact on what you think.

Just because a corporation is a legal entity separate from its owners and officers does not mean that it is wholly disassociated from them.  Restrictions and requirements on a corporation imply that the people who belong to that corporation are going to have to modify their behavior in some manner.  For example, if the corporation has to follow ITAR regulations against selling satellite technology to China, then a salesman can't claim immunity from prosecution on the grounds that the law applies to the corporation and not to him.  Or, to use a more timely example, if a corporation commits financial fraud, then that opens the owners up to criminal prosecution.  The owners are not immune simply because the corporation pays a fine.

Actually, a corporation is wholly dissociated from its owners and officers for most matters.  You have a bit of a fundamental misunderstanding which you show in your example.  Common Law-derived rights (those spelled out in the US Constitution) apply [mostly] to persons.  Laws apply equally to persons and corporations.  Incorporation legally differentiates an owner person from an organization - if an owner breaks a non-criminal law in their direction of their company, the company is liable.  If an officer or employee breaks a non-criminal law in the course of their employment, the company is liable.  On criminal matters, it differs (sometimes by statute).  Typically, criminal law allows the 'directing mind' of the criminal activity to be charged.  If the 'directing mind' is not substantially different from the company, the owner/director can be charged personally and so can the company.  If the 'directing mind' is rogue from the company, then they can be held solely liable.

Criminal law and rights work differently, but the purpose of incorporation is to separate an owner from their company financially, and does so effectively, providing numerous tax and liability benefits.  The tradeoff is that the owner's rights and the company's rights are now separate matters.  Thus, while an owner may have religious rights in accordance with the US Constitution, the corporation should not.  If the owner is a sole proprietor, then I absolutely agree they should not be forced to pay for benefits for their employees that they object to on religious grounds because it would amount to them personally paying for them.  Conversely, if they incorporate to gain tax and liability benefits, then they are no longer paying personally, a non-human corporation is, and a corporation does not have religious rights.

Normally I'd have some confidence that the SCOTUS would side with me on this matter, but they went into uncharted territory with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010 and now I really don't know which way they'll go.  Constitutionally, they should go with what I've said, but Citizens United was a reversal of that doctrine and an expansion of corporate rights that really is unprecedented.

If you agree that certain penalties must apply to owners if a corporation violates the law, then you must also agree that the legal rights of owners bubble up to establish boundaries on what a corporation can be required to do.

No, I musn't because criminal charging definitions are defined by individual statute and are unrelated to the financial/property liability restrictions that incorporation provides.  Incorporation is a civil matter of property law; what you're talking about is technically criminal law, where civil property protections carry essentially no weight.  An owner cannot be held civilly-liable for the actions of a corporation because they are two distinct financial entities.  Similarly, owners should not be able to claim their religious rights that free them from certain financial obligations apply to their corporations because they are two distinct financial entities.  Criminal law, which you're using in your example, is irrelevant to this context.

[Luis Dias]

So... you'd be OK with, say, Quakers refusing to pay the portion of their taxes that goes towards military expenditure?

So obviously this.

Hey I know, I'm gonna fund a new religion. In my religion it is a sin that the government does anything at all. Therefore I have to pay zero for that ****. According to this kind of thinking, I should start paying zero IRS from now on, FOR SURE.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

So am I the only one seeing a bigger picture here?  If these corporations are allowed to do this for contraception on religious grounds based on their religion how long before other corporations start stating that they are established under religions that not only could limit other health care areas but who they hire.  If their religion says that women belong in the home and are property not people does that give them the right not to hire them based on the established religion of the corporate entity?  If their religion says that only race X is the true race and all others are inferior then do they have the right to deny hiring everyone that isn't a member of race X?   If the established religion of the corporation is one that believes that homosexuality is wrong can they refuse to hire gays/lesbians?  Back to health care if their religion believes that doctors and medicine are not needed and that all healing is done through the power of prayer or mediation can they deny health insurance entirely based on religious grounds? 

[MP-Ryan]

So am I the only one seeing a bigger picture here?  If these corporations are allowed to do this for contraception on religious grounds based on their religion how long before other corporations start stating that they are established under religions that not only could limit other health care areas but who they hire.  If their religion says that women belong in the home and are property not people does that give them the right not to hire them based on the established religion of the corporate entity?  If their religion says that only race X is the true race and all others are inferior then do they have the right to deny hiring everyone that isn't a member of race X?   If the established religion of the corporation is one that believes that homosexuality is wrong can they refuse to hire gays/lesbians?  Back to health care if their religion believes that doctors and medicine are not needed and that all healing is done through the power of prayer or mediation can they deny health insurance entirely based on religious grounds?

No, you aren't the only one, I just tend to avoid slippery-slope arguments.  I agree with you that precedent in this area can have some pretty awful consequences if the courts don't inject some sense into the issue, though.

The argument against what you're suggesting is that refusing to pay for certain health care is not a Constitutional violation (as there is no "right to healthcare" enshrined in the Constitution of the US).  Conversely, discriminatory business practices would violate the rights of those individuals, and the courts have ruled in the past that one Constitutional right does not automatically trump others - e.g. freedom of religion cannot trump freedom from discrimination.

At any rate, I think most of us around here agree that this is very bad judicial precedent.

[Goober5000]

So... you'd be OK with, say, Quakers refusing to pay the portion of their taxes that goes towards military expenditure?

I think that's a reasonable position.  And a quick Google search reveals that there has been plenty of history of litigating that very point.

Well, at least you're consistent, though I still think it's wrong and economically bad policy.  Did you happen to look at the link and follow-up I showed to KyadCK?  I'm curious if the terrible economics of that positions have any impact on what you think.

I glanced at it, but the economics of the US healthcare system is an entirely separate discussion, and one that only tangentially affects this one.  The question in this case concerns Hobby Lobby's right to refuse to fund certain insurance plans, not whether it makes economic sense for them to do so.  Indeed, using the Jehovah's Witness example, I imagine that their policy would cause both their potential employee base and their potential customer base to shrink by a not-insignificant amount.

This is the sort of dilemma that inevitably arises when people treat religion seriously, when they have to wrestle with the deeper implications rather than the superficial aspects of browsing through a catalog.  Jesus called it "counting the cost".  The owners of Hobby Lobby believe so strongly that funding these medications is morally wrong that they are willing to incur significant legal, financial, and political risk to defend their case.

The really interesting things would happen if Hobby Lobby ends up losing.  I would speculate that Hobby Lobby is prepared to implement dramatic changes to their benefits package or go bankrupt rather than continue under the present regulations.  I hope we don't have to find out.

Actually, a corporation is wholly dissociated from its owners and officers for most matters.  You have a bit of a fundamental misunderstanding which you show in your example.  Common Law-derived rights (those spelled out in the US Constitution) apply [mostly] to persons.  Laws apply equally to persons and corporations.  Incorporation legally differentiates an owner person from an organization - if an owner breaks a non-criminal law in their direction of their company, the company is liable.  If an officer or employee breaks a non-criminal law in the course of their employment, the company is liable.  On criminal matters, it differs (sometimes by statute).  Typically, criminal law allows the 'directing mind' of the criminal activity to be charged.  If the 'directing mind' is not substantially different from the company, the owner/director can be charged personally and so can the company.  If the 'directing mind' is rogue from the company, then they can be held solely liable.

Criminal law and rights work differently, but the purpose of incorporation is to separate an owner from their company financially, and does so effectively, providing numerous tax and liability benefits.  The tradeoff is that the owner's rights and the company's rights are now separate matters.  Thus, while an owner may have religious rights in accordance with the US Constitution, the corporation should not.  If the owner is a sole proprietor, then I absolutely agree they should not be forced to pay for benefits for their employees that they object to on religious grounds because it would amount to them personally paying for them.  Conversely, if they incorporate to gain tax and liability benefits, then they are no longer paying personally, a non-human corporation is, and a corporation does not have religious rights.

I'm not familiar with the finer points of incorporation, nor do I really care to learn them, but I'm arguing from a "this ought to be the case" perspective rather than "this is what the law says" perspective.  The corporation itself is morally neutral, but the "directing mind" is a moral actor.  And all I'm really saying is that the corporation should not be regulated in such a way that it infringes on the rights of the directing mind.  To use a silly example, the owner of a corporation does not lose his right to vote if the corporation is less than 18 years old.

Incorporation is a civil matter of property law; what you're talking about is technically criminal law, where civil property protections carry essentially no weight.  An owner cannot be held civilly-liable for the actions of a corporation because they are two distinct financial entities.  Similarly, owners should not be able to claim their religious rights that free them from certain financial obligations apply to their corporations because they are two distinct financial entities.  Criminal law, which you're using in your example, is irrelevant to this context.

I understand the difference between civil and criminal law and why incorporation is a matter of civil law.  But I think you're misapplying that to the owner's legal rights because you're essentially saying that civil law trumps a person's religious rights.  You say above that in a sole proprietorship, the owner should not be forced to pay for benefits they object to on religious grounds, which is great -- we agree halfway at least.  But I'm saying that the owner does not -- or should not -- lose his religious rights just because he's the owner of a corporation, not a sole proprietorship.  Religious rights are not a matter of civil law.

Suppose a Muslim owned a shop, and his sales policy was that every customer who bought something from the store had to say a prayer to Allah.  I would argue that if he tried to sue a customer for not saying that prayer, his sales policy would not hold up in court because a person's religious rights are not waived simply because the customer decides to participate in a civil contract.

[MP-Ryan]

But I'm saying that the owner does not -- or should not -- lose his religious rights just because he's the owner of a corporation, not a sole proprietorship.  Religious rights are not a matter of civil law.

I picked this line to quote because I think it sums up your entire argument and because it's legally misunderstood.

The point is, the owner individual is not required to follow the ACA and executive policy directives that accord with it.  The corporation is.  The owner still has free ability to exert his religious rights.  The corporation, which is an entirely separate financial entity, does not have religious rights.  Just as the owner cannot be held liable for the finances of the corporation, the corporation cannot claim its finances are those of the owner for the purpose of exerting a religious rights argument.  They are two entirely separate legal entities - Constitutionally, civilly, and even criminally (though criminally they may be treated in the same manner based on statute).

Incorporation is a legal dissociation of financial liability of person and corporation.  Once that step has been taken, the owner can no longer claim it is a violation of his religious rights to provide for certain health care of employees, because s/he is no longer providing them - the corporation is the entity providing them, and corporations are not historically protected by freedom of religion because they are not people.  The reason that a sole proprietorship owner can exercise religious rights is because the owner is the sole legal entity, and they cannot be forced to pay for something they disagree with on religious grounds.  Incidentally, that sole proprietorship scenario is what the 10th Circuit appears to have contemplated in their kosher butchering example.

Reversing my earlier comment, having thought about it some more I don't think Citizens United actually sets precedent for this issue, either - that case was not about corporations but rather individuals working cooperatively.  There wasn't the legal liability of corporations thrown into the mix.  With that in mind, I'm not aware of any previous precedent in the US of religious exemptions being applied to corporations, so I have a fair bit more confidence this Hobby Lobby case will be quashed in short order.

[Turambar]

The freedom to enforce one's religious hooey on rational adults is a freedom we don't really need.

[AtomicClucker]

I don't support Hobby Lobby for this and having the most terrible and ****ty collection of art supplies. Their brushes suck, their gesso cheap second rate gruel and their staff has as much inspiration as two wal-mart greeters duct taped together and displayed like a Christmas ornament.

[Goober5000]

The point is, the owner individual is not required to follow the ACA and executive policy directives that accord with it.  The corporation is.  The owner still has free ability to exert his religious rights.  The corporation, which is an entirely separate financial entity, does not have religious rights.  Just as the owner cannot be held liable for the finances of the corporation, the corporation cannot claim its finances are those of the owner for the purpose of exerting a religious rights argument.

Hmm.  This is a pretty strong argument.

The way I see it though, even though the corporation and the owners are two separate legal entities, the corporation can't actually do anything of its own accord.  Even though the finances of the owner and the corporation are legally separate, the owner still provides those finances.  And the owner is the one that has to make all the contracts and arrangements with the insurance companies, etc.  So he is acting as the "hands and feet" of the corporation, in carrying out its operations.  And in the Nuremberg trials, officers were still held to have moral responsibility even if they were following orders from a superior.

The freedom to enforce one's religious hooey on rational adults is a freedom we don't really need.

You're being completely dishonest here.  Hobby Lobby isn't forcing anything on anyone.  Employees can purchase their own insurance while remaining employed by Hobby Lobby.  They can seek employment elsewhere.  They can choose to purchase their hobby supplies elsewhere.

and having the most terrible and ****ty collection of art supplies. Their brushes suck, their gesso cheap second rate gruel and their staff has as much inspiration as two wal-mart greeters duct taped together and displayed like a Christmas ornament.

How is this at all relevant to the thread?  This is purely ad-hominem.

[Luis Dias]

You're being completely dishonest here.  Hobby Lobby isn't forcing anything on anyone.  Employees can purchase their own insurance while remaining employed by Hobby Lobby.  They can seek employment elsewhere.  They can choose to purchase their hobby supplies elsewhere.

This is not completely true. If these guys are able to not pay what they otherwise would due to "religious disagreements", then they will have an economic advantage over their competition, which in case will drive all the other companies to do likewise. Even if their CEOs are bhuddists or atheists or satanists or whatever, you would see how quickly they would convert to christianity if that meant they would save their company millions of dollars a week.

Although I agree with the general idea that completely socialized medicine would be way way way way way better, however this is the least bad thing the states have come up with, let's not destroy it with utter shenanigans that will make people look to religion as, again, a force against the common people.

[The E]

Pretty sure that this does not constitute millions in savings. Let us not get caught up in hyperbole here.

[Mars]

Pretty sure that this does not constitute millions in savings. Let us not get caught up in hyperbole here.

Hobby lobby has (according to wikipedia, so not the strongest source) 21,000 employees. Assuming half of them are female and say, two thirds are on the pill, which goes for, for the purposes of argument $15 / month - that would be $105,000 per month on the pill alone.

[MP-Ryan]

The point is, the owner individual is not required to follow the ACA and executive policy directives that accord with it.  The corporation is.  The owner still has free ability to exert his religious rights.  The corporation, which is an entirely separate financial entity, does not have religious rights.  Just as the owner cannot be held liable for the finances of the corporation, the corporation cannot claim its finances are those of the owner for the purpose of exerting a religious rights argument.

Hmm.  This is a pretty strong argument.

The way I see it though, even though the corporation and the owners are two separate legal entities, the corporation can't actually do anything of its own accord.  Even though the finances of the owner and the corporation are legally separate, the owner still provides those finances.  And the owner is the one that has to make all the contracts and arrangements with the insurance companies, etc.  So he is acting as the "hands and feet" of the corporation, in carrying out its operations.  And in the Nuremberg trials, officers were still held to have moral responsibility even if they were following orders from a superior.

That isn't true, either.  In most corporations, owners have virtually no responsibility for day-to-day operations.  The owner doesn't provide corporate finances either - typically, owners are paid by the corporation, be it in the form of salary, dividends, royalties, stock options, etc - after a corporation is established, an owner may then invest in his corporation, but the corporation may not use the owners' funds without a business arrangement such as an investment agreement in place.

In point of fact, corporations do things of their own accord all the time, under the direction of the various staff it employs, from directors/CEO/etc down to the lowliest janitor.  The owner doesn't sign for contracts either; the corporation is the legal entity that is responsible for the contracts because it is financially separate.

Say MP-Ryan establishes General Discussion Sense Enterprises Ltd.  As soon as that act of incorporation is completed, there are now two legal entities.  There is MP-Ryan, and there is GDSE Ltd.  Each has their own finances.  MP-Ryan takes a salary of $100,000/year and maintains ownership of 100% of the corporation.  If GDSE Ltd makes $5 million this year, the remaining $4.9 million in revenue belongs to GDSE Ltd.  MP-Ryan has no claim to it except if he sells his stake in ownership or a portion thereof.  MP-Ryan does nto even have a right to dictate how the corporation uses that money unless he is a director or officer of the corporation in addition to being its owner.

Corporations are legal entities entirely independent of their owners, and they cannot shirk their legal obligations by trying to hide under the guise of the rights afforded to their owners.