Why would a judge or court rule that a corporation is a secular organization?
In reality, a corporation, business, or any organization reflects
the values of the leaders of the organization, as well as the values of everyone
in the corporation.A corporation that values honesty, integrity,
quality, hard work, service, compassion, faith in God, love for God and
fellow-mankind, loyalty, respect, and so many other values of humanity and
religion is an organization that will serve others well. It is an organization
that will be successful, and one that I would want to do business with.A corporation that is secular may reflect a foundation that is shifting, in my
opinion. I believe a corporation reflects the values of the owners.
A corporation should be free to exercise religious beliefs and be protected by
religious rights of expression. If someone disagrees with the values of the
corporation, then do business somewhere else. But government should not force a
corporation to adapt certain values that are offensive.
.....Hobby Lobby, whose Christian owners say the mandate's requirement to
provide abortifacients under their employee health plan violates their religious
beliefs......Note that "abortifacients" is an obscure term
that right wingers use to make contraception sound like baby killing -- a
despicable act, in my view.The rights of Poor Women are being
trampled on by self-righteous employers.Women who work for minimum wage do
not always have the luxury of finding employers who give benefits -- and they
may risk pregnancies that hurt their other kids to put the contraception money
toward food, shoes, etc. Not to mention that the public is forced to pay
to school, feed, and police unwanted kids.With Obama's policies
and the ACA, millions of poorer working women are assured of the chance to plan
their families, as the more affluent already do.
DavidCenterville, UTWhy would a judge or court rule that a
corporation is a secular organization?..... sorry, this lacks the
most basic understanding of the word "secular"1. Worldly rather
than spiritual. 2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious
bodyIf you are in business, you are not a church, and vice versa.You think only of the owners, not the right of employees in a business open to
the public to have the same rights as if they worked elsewhere.Perhaps you are thinking of fiefdoms and serfs.
This absolutely amazing. Are we going to mandate that chewing gum also be
supplied by insurance companies? How about haircuts? So much heated debate over
something that is so cheap. We are talking about $10 per month. Just buy your
The SCOTUS is going to decide whether citizens of the US may have any other God
other than the government. Liberals on the court will, of course say we may not!
Corporations are people with religious rights. so the individual does not
possess a unique place in our society that protects and guards it from the
tyranny of corporations and business. We're all the same?Any
questions why Americas middle class has struggled for the past 30 years?
"Tyranny of corporations"? Name one corporation that can force anyone to
do business with them! Corporations can not tax you to death, can not regulate
you in any way, can not put you in prison, can not spy on you, can not force
anyone to do business with them, can not force you to buy healthcare from them.
On the other hand, there is the government! Where does real tyranny come from?
The court cannot make up its mind. The individuals would be burdened, but their
company would not? Who decides what the company will do? The SHAREHOLDERS.
Why do contraceptives need to be mandated anyway, if not to force BO’s and
the dems’ morality on the rest of the nation?Bob K,Why
cannot women (or their partners) buy their own contraceptives? They can say,
“no” to unprotected activities. Both are effective methods of
planning their own families. Why do YOU want to insert their employer into
their bedroom behavior? Employers are not prohibiting ANYTHING or
forcing their beliefs on ANYONE by NOT buying contraceptives. To misconstrue
the argument to say employers are trampling the rights of their employees is a
despicable act in my view.
@Mountanman: You wrote, "The SCOTUS is going to decide whether citizens of
the US may have any other God other than the government. Liberals on the court
will, of course say we may not!"How they rule will have
absolutely nothing to do with anyone deciding whether U.S. citizen may have a
God. If they rule against having prayers in government meetings, you still get
to keep your religious beliefs. If they rule in favor of prayers
in government meetings, are you ok with fairness? For example, if you have
Hindu representatives, are you going to give them a turn at prayer? How about
Satan worshipers? Religion should be kept separate from the government.
It's better for religious people, though many don't see it. If you
believe Church and state should not be separate, which Church should have the
Bob K,If an employee doesn't like working for a corporation
that reflects the owners religious values, that employee can seek a new work
environment. You fail to persuade me to any degree that a corporation should be
forced to adopt values that the government dictates.A corporation
should be able to reflect the values of the owner. The employees make a
contract with the owner/corporation to provide services in exchange for
compensation. If the employee doesn't like anything about the contract or
work environment, the employee can make a change. If a customer
doesn't like anything about the culture, environment, or service of a
corporation or organization, the customer can seek services elsewhere. No
one's freedom is restricted.However, if the government imposes
restrictions upon a corporation requiring it to provide services that oppose the
values of the owner, that is limiting freedom. I disagree strongly with such a
@ Mr.Smitty. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion or restrict the free exercise thereof." Can the government force
you to pay for other people's abortions? If you for religious reasons
believe, as I do, that abortion (or birth control pills) is morally wrong, can
the government force you and me to fund them? The answer is yes they can thus
violating people's religious rights. Have no fear, the SCOTUS will not
uphold religious rights because they are corrupt. Thus the constitution is
meaningless when it comes to the protection of religious rights.
It seems that all of the comments, particularly those responding to me, are by
men.Perhaps it is hard for you to put yourself in the place of a
woman struggling to support her family, a woman whose education and
circumstances force her to seek low-wage employment wherever she can get it,
even if not ideal.Perhaps you find it OK to say "work
elsewhere", or "find your own contraception".One of you
even suggests she "avoid unprotected activities" -- if that is not an
invasion of privacy and indecent to even suggest, I can say nothing to you.What would Jesus do?He would insist that all the women got
the benefit, equally, and that the bosses, in their hubris and resentment, were
being the very opposite of those who follow Him.
@Bob KWhat would Jesus do?He would expect you to take
personal responsibility. And not demand others to pay for your
Bob K,What would Jesus do? He would respect the rights
of people to make their own choices and enjoy the consequences. An employer
would not be forced to offer abortion services under Jesus plan, guaranteed.
Nor would an employer be forced to offer contraception.Remember the
parable of the laborers? Each were paid the same, regardless of when they
started their day of labor. It was fair when the agreement/contract was made.
Employees can choose where they want to work. If their options are
limited, then the employee may accept a job that may be in a non-ideal
environment (where the owner's religious values may be expressed, as this
article is about). I can't help but believe that would be a positive for
most employees.It is the liberal ideological influence that makes us
believe that corporations MUST provide certain benefits for an employee. In a
true free market, though there would be some regulations to protect the
employee, an employer would not be forced to provide abortion services and
contraception. That would be negotiated as terms of compensation.
During the late 1930's,-ninety five percent of Austria voted for German
rule under Hitler, with the promise of a better economy, and healthcare.Why are people so gullible?
the truthHolladay, UT@Bob KWhat would Jesus do?He would
expect you to take personal responsibility. And not demand others to pay
for your choices.....Only a conservative man with NO understanding
whatever of poor women would put such an incorrect thought into the mouth of
Jesus.Only a conservative (and probably older) man would call
contraception a choice for working women -- it is a necessity.It is
not conservative at all to encourage unwanted children to be born, to burden
families and taxpayers, by a very not Christian comment.If women
were still chained to the stove, men could get away with not thinking
compassionately of them, nor with putting a political view above their lives.
So the conservatives above who believe that that corporations can mandate their
beliefs on their employees, would be fine with corporations discriminating
against any person, or group of people based on their religion, race or sex
,because their religious beliefs command them to do so.Also a
business like hobby lobby who buys most of their tacky home interior goods from
China, are willing to overlook China's stance on abortion to make more
money shows where their loyalties really lie, doesn't it?
It's gonna be fun watching Scalia twist history, logic and the
Constitution, once again, this time to uphold a corporation's First
Amendment right to free exercise of religion. This is just the predictably
inane offshoot of the Citizens' United ruling that recognized corporate
free speech, defining the scope of free speech as being proportional to the
amount of money available to purchase mass media exposure.If
individual owners can assert religious freedom through a corporation, why should
the corporate fiction then shield them personally from tort or contract
liability. The corporation either is or is not a separate "person"
created by law and the almighty dollar as opposed to God. So, if it is not after
all a separate person for religious freedom, why should it be so for imposing
civil or criminal liability?I predict that Scalia will answer such
questions with a theory of corporate ensoulment -not at conception as with
biological human beings, but simply when the articles of incorporation are filed
with the state secretary. Hey, it makes just as much sense as corporate free
speech exercised by spending money passed through from anonymous donors.