03 Jul 14
1 edit
Corporate law did not abrogate freedom of association rights and other rights that may be exercised collectively. It is weird that liberals think people who incorporate waive their rights. I did not know you had to kiss the emperor's ring before you incorporated.
03 Jul 14
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeRed herring. No one is claiming that any individual rights are waived, but no rights of a natural person are artificially transferred to a separate legal entity either. The Green and Hahns fully maintain all their rights.
Corporate law did not abrogate freedom of association rights and other rights that may be exercised collectively. It is weird that liberals think people who incorporate waive their rights. I did not know you had to kiss the emperor's ring before you incorporated.
03 Jul 14
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeThe idea that the US is a country where a person can go into business and not have to pay homage to the government is a foreign idea to those who believe in traditional European government dominated society.
Corporate law did not abrogate freedom of association rights and other rights that may be exercised collectively. It is weird that liberals think people who incorporate waive their rights. I did not know you had to kiss the emperor's ring before you incorporated.
03 Jul 14
Originally posted by EladarYou do realize that the entire idea of a "corporation" came from the "traditional European government dominated society", don't you?
The idea that the US is a country where a person can go into business and not have to pay homage to the government is a foreign idea to those who believe in traditional European government dominated society.
04 Jul 14
Originally posted by no1marauder
Red herring. No one is claiming that any individual rights are waived, but no rights of a natural person are artificially transferred to a separate legal entity either. The Green and Hahns fully maintain all their rights.
marauder:
The whole point of incorporation is to create a legal entity separate and distinct from its owners. Your argument is "a have your cake and eat it too" one; I want to form a corporation so I am not personally liable for its debts but I insist that as far as my constitutional rights are concerned the corporation is a mere extension of me.
You can't have it both ways.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=157262&page=&page=3
Its your red herring, not mine.
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeNo. The "burden" here imposed is too attenuated to be a "substantial" one as required by the RFRA. The dissent cites Bowen v. Roy which seems on point:
Marauder, would Hobby Lobby's RFRA claim succeed if it wasn't incorporated?
There, the Court rejected a free exercise challenge to the Government’s use of a Native American child’s Social Security number for purposes of administering benefit programs. Without questioning the sincerity of the father’s religious belief that “use of [his daughter’s Social Security] number may harm [her] spirit,”the Court concluded that the Government’s internal uses of that number “place[d] [no] restriction on what [the father] may believe or what he may do.”
Id.,
at 699
.
Recognizing that the father’s “religious views may not accept” the position that the challenged uses concerned only the Government’s internal affairs, the Court explained that “for the adjudication of a constitutional claim,the Constitution, rather than an individual’s religion,must supply the frame of reference.”
Id.,
at 700–701, n. 6. See also
Hernandez
v.
Commissioner
, 490 U. S. 680, 699 (1989) (distinguishing between, on the one hand, “question[s] [of] the centrality of particular beliefs or practices to a faith, or the validity of particular litigants’ interpretations of those creeds,” and, on the other, “whether the alleged burden imposed [by the challenged government action] is a substantial one&rdquo😉. Inattentive to this guidance,today’s decision elides entirely the distinction between the sincerity of a challenger’s religious belief and the substantiality of the burden placed on the challenger.
Undertaking the inquiry that the Court forgoes, I would conclude that the connection between the families’ religious objections and the contraceptive coverage requirement is too attenuated to rank as substantial. The requirement carries no command that Hobby Lobby or Conestoga purchase or provide the contraceptives they find objectionable. Instead, it calls on the companies covered by the requirement to direct money into undifferentiated funds that finance a wide variety of benefits under comprehensive health plans. Those plans, in order to comply with the ACA, see
supra,
at 3–6, must offer contraceptive coverage without cost sharing, just as they must cover an array of other preventive services.Importantly, the decisions whether to claim benefits under the plans are made not by Hobby Lobby or Cones- toga, but by the covered employees and dependents, in consultation with their health care providers. Should an employee of Hobby Lobby or Conestoga share the religious beliefs of the Greens and Hahns, she is of course under no compulsion to use the contraceptives in question. But “[n]o individual decision by an employee and her physician—be it to use contraception, treat an infection, or have a hip replaced—is in any meaningful sense [her employ-er’s] decision or action.”
Grote
v.
Sebelius
, 708 F. 3d 850, 865 (CA7 2013) (Rovner, J., dissenting). It is doubtful that Congress, when it specified that burdens must be “substantia[l],” had in mind a linkage thus interrupted by independent decision makers (the woman and her health counselor) standing between the challenged government action and the religious exercise claimed to be infringed. Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman
covered under Hobby Lobby’s or Conestoga’s plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman’s autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults.
Ginsburg's dissent, p. 22-23
Essentially the "burden" being placed on the Greens and Hahns is that an employee of theirs might do something they don't like under a provided benefit plan. That's hardly a "substantial burden" being imposed by governmental action.
04 Jul 14
Originally posted by no1marauderSo Hobby Lobby is a person if it is unincorporated, but it is not a person if it is incorporated? You glossed over this part of the analysis by jumping straight into the substantial burden analysis.
No. The "burden" here imposed is too attenuated to be a "substantial" one as required by the RFRA. The dissent cites Bowen v. Roy which seems on point:
Essentially the "burden" being placed on the Greens and Hahns is that an employee of theirs might do something they don't like under a provided benefit plan. That's hardly a "substantial burden" being imposed by governmental action.
---------------------------
Here is the burden:
The court then held that the corporations had established a likelihood of success on their RFRA claim. 723 F. 3d, at 1140–1147. The court concluded that the contraceptive mandate substantially burdened the exercise of religion by requiring the companies to choose between “compromis[ing] their religious beliefs” and paying a heavy fee—either “close to $475 million more in taxes every year” if they simply refused to provide coverage for the contraceptives at issue, or “roughly $26 million” annually if they “drop[ped] health-insurance benefits for all employees.” Id., at 1141.
Fees and taxes are government action...
The government is compelling private businesses to subsidize a particular viewpoint contrary to their religious beliefs. If they do not comply, they have to pay an outrageous penalty. This is clearly a substantial burden.
I think the government knew that the penalty was a substantial burden. That is why they exempted some churches from the contraceptive mandate.
04 Jul 14
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeHobby Lobby's usage of currency already places the same burden on them.
So Hobby Lobby is a person if it is unincorporated, but it is not a person if it is incorporated? You glossed over this part of the analysis by jumping straight into the substantial burden analysis.
---------------------------
Here is the burden:
[quote]The court then held that the corporations had established a likelihood of success on their ...[text shortened]... s a substantial burden. That is why they exempted some churches from the contraceptive mandate.
04 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeYOU asked me what the result would be if Hobby Lobby wasn't incorporated. That makes the "part of the analysis" you just complained I "glossed over" irrelevant.
So Hobby Lobby is a person if it is unincorporated, but it is not a person if it is incorporated? You glossed over this part of the analysis by jumping straight into the substantial burden analysis.
---------------------------
Here is the burden:
[quote]The court then held that the corporations had established a likelihood of success on their ...[text shortened]... s a substantial burden. That is why they exempted some churches from the contraceptive mandate.
The Greens and Hahns dropping insurance would be their own decision in response to a public policy that imposes nothing on them but a requirement to provide insurance or pay a fine. That the insurance has to provide coverage of something to people who want it is no "substantial burden" to them.
04 Jul 14
Originally posted by no1marauderWhether or not Hobby Lobby is a person is relevant because you do not have to do the substantial burden analysis if Hobby Lobby is not a person. Once again...
YOU asked me what the result would be if Hobby Lobby wasn't incorporated. That makes the "part of the analysis" you just complained I "glossed over" irrelevant.
Is Hobby Lobby a person under RFRA if it is unincorporated?
04 Jul 14
Originally posted by MoneyManMike????
Whether or not Hobby Lobby is a person is relevant because you do not have to do the substantial burden analysis if Hobby Lobby is not a person. Once again...
Is Hobby Lobby a person under RFRA if it is unincorporated?
What is it if it isn't incorporated?