Anyone think with the way this country has declined in the past couple of
decades that religious rights will take a back seat to the new ACA Tax on
Liberals constantly tell us they are pro-choice. Forcing your neighbors to pay
for your birth control is not pro-choice, its government coercion! "What I
choose to do with my body is not your business" they tell us "Keep the
government out of my bedroom", they tell the rest of us. Except using
government law to force other people to pay for what you choose to do with your
body, in your bedroom is now demanded, expected and forced upon us, by liberals!
Conclusion: Freedom of choice is only for liberals, the rest of you must comply!
@Mountanman;"Forcing your neighbors to pay for your birth
control is not pro-choice,..."What do you call PREMIUMS? They
ARE paid by the employee. Employers have absolutely no right whatsoever to
force their religious views on their employees.
"Forcing your neighbors to pay for your birth control is not pro-choice, its
government coercion"Lets look at your choices today. Mandated
by your insurance company.Does your health insurance cover
contraceptives? Do you have a choice to remove that coverage?Does
your policy cover childbirth?Do you have a choice to remove that
coverage?Does your policy cover blood transfusions?Do you have a
choice to remove that coverage?We have been "forced" by the
insurance companies for years to cover these sorts of things.Where
is your outrage at Blue Cross Blue Shield?This outrage is a joke.
@ Joe Blow, Answers to your questions: YES, I have a CHOICE of coverage in my
health insurance, at least until it is cancelled by Obamacare mandates. With
Obamacare, I have NO choices and must pay for what the government chooses for
me! That's the difference, even if your ideology has you blinded to that.
Obamacare burns down your house, comes to your rescue with an empty water bucket
and then Obama lectures you about how defective your house was anyway!
"YES, I have a CHOICE of coverage in my health insurance"So,
you say you have a "choice of coverage". I also have limited
"choices" but not down to the level of whether or not they cover such
things as transfusions, childbirth or contraceptives.Are you saying
that you do?Come on Mtnman. Care to provide the name of an
insurance company that allows these choices?I would be interested to
@ Joe. Aetna, Cigna, among many, many others! You can pick and choose what you
want covered and your premium cost are varied accordingly and none of them force
me to pay for your birth control!
@Mountainman, nobody -- nobody-- is forcing anyone to buy insurance that covers
birth control. What on earth are you complaining about?
@ Irony Guy. Obamacare forces older people to pay for maternity insurance,
forces people to pay for birth control! Where have you been?
Their body. Not yours. Religious exemptions are fine,
for the person. Otherwise, if you want to be 'outraged',
why are we paying Medicare… to cover men's Viagra?
I'm somewhat content to accept the concept of corporations having legal
personhood, as it has some utility in policy and law. However, it raises some
questions. Although legally "persons," corporations are not
"people" (despite what Gov. Romney said). They have no corporeal being,
they have no mind-- they are merely convenient legal figments of our
imagination. So what defines the "personality" of a corporation? Does
(or can) the corporate person exist and have an identity or values independent
of its human ownership? Apropos the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga cases, are the
religious values of a corporation determined by its CEO? By its shareholders?
By a vote of the directors? By its employees? Could a corporation have values
different from its owner's?Say XYZ Inc. is owned by a priest, a
rabbi, an imam, and an LDS bishop. They each own 25.0% of the stock, they each
are co-presidents on the board, and they each equally share executive powers.
What are the religious values of XYZ Inc.? Say XYZ Inc. (a legal person,
remember) walks into a bar. Does it buy a cocktail? Does it eat the port
Lagomorph:Corporation a group of people who get a charter granting them
as a body certain of the legal powers, rights, privileges and liabilities of an
individual, distinct from those of the individuals making up the group; A
corporation can buy, sell, and inherit property 2. A group of people, as the
mayor and alderman of an incorporated town, legally authorized to act as an
individual. 3 any of the political and economic bodies forming a corporative
state, each being composed of employers and employees in a certain industry,
profession, etc.So you see lagomorph, Mitt Romney was correct, among
many other things, about corporations being people. Or were you thinking in
terms of 'robots'?
Joan Watson: "Corporation a group of people who get a charter granting them
as a body certain of the legal powers, rights, privileges and liabilities of an
individual, DISTINCT FROM THOSE OF THE INDIVIDUALS MAKING UP THE GROUP..."
[emphasis added]We can dismiss definitions 2 and 3 as irrelevant to
the current discussion (namely, business corporations). The emphasized clause
in your definition makes my point: corporations are organized aggregations of
people, but they have an existence and powers distinct from and independent of
those people. A corporation exists as a legal entity (a legal person), but it
has no physical being, except maybe for a sheaf of papers stamped with the seal
of a state department of corporations. It is not human, not people, though it
contains people. And that is the crux of my questions. What constitutes the
conscience, values, religion, or voice of a corporation when it has no physical
body or brain? In the Hobby Lobby case, the company is arguing that the
contraceptive mandate violates the corporation's religious views (not just
those of its founder and CEO). As I asked in my original post, how are the
religious views of a corporation determined?
@Pagan"Their body?" That's a valid concept, but very short
sighted. When an unborn child is involved, the question is not confined to one
person's body. A person is generally allowed to treat their body anyway
they chose, but an unborn child is no longer just "their body."
Definition of a corporation as given in the New World Dictionary is not hard to
understand even for high school students. The point is that people make up a
corporation and that includes those who are chosen to represent them. To claim
that a corporation is not composed of people is ludicrous.
@Owl;"...an unborn child is no longer just "their
body.""---An "unborn child", a few
cells, is still not a person and has absolutely NO RIGHT to demand that
it's host carry it for 9 months.
Hobby Lobby is removed by several steps in the chain of events from the
contraception (or drug-assisted abortions) that it finds objectionable. The
contraceptive mandate in the ACA does not force Hobby Lobby or its employees to
use contraceptives. It only requires the company to make contraceptive coverage
available in their insurance plans. The company never pays directly for any
drug-- the insurer does. Hobby Lobby's premiums are pooled with those of
other policy holders. No dollar spent for a pill can be traced back to Hobby
Lobby.So how far does moral culpability go with indirect, dilute
financial transactions? If indirect financial support to a third party equates
to culpability, then Hobby Lobby might also rethink its use of Chinese
suppliers, because its business with them subsidizes China's One Child
policy (not to mention horrid labor practices that can't be aligned with
Hobby Lobby values). To be consistent, the company would have to sever
financial ties with any other party that facilitates contraceptive use. Its
pension plan could not invest in pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies
that cover contraception, or any company with a health plan that covers
Joan Watson: "To claim that a corporation is not composed of people is
ludicrous."Yes, it would be ludicrous. I made no such claim.
In fact, twice in my response to you I acknowledged that corporations are
composed of people ("corporations are organized aggregations of people"
and "though it contains people"). That is not the point. Even the
dictionary definition you yourself cited noted that corporations have properties
distinct from the people that comprise them. The whole is greater than (or at
least different from) the sum of its parts. And that is why I stressed the
difference between legal personhood and biological personhood. They are not the
same.Try addressing any of my questions. How are the values of a
nonbiological entity determined? You come close to an answer with "includes
those who are chosen to represent them." Are you saying it's the board
of directors, the CEO, the stockholders, the employees, a union? Who, exactly?
Are the values of a corporation determined democratically (most number of people
in support) or financially (largest investors)?Correction to 11/27
10:21 post: pork fritters, not port fritters
"To claim that a corporation is not composed of people is ludicrous."I don't believe that anyone claimed that they weren't.My house is composed of brick, but one would hardly call a brick a
house.Here is my problem with corporations. People in corporations
sometimes do unscrupulous things. When they do, the corporation gets fined.
Those fines ultimately hurt the stockholders who had nothing to do with.If corporations are people, why does the corporation get fined rather
than the people who cross the line?
As one recalls, Mitt Romney was laughed scornfully when he stated corporations
were people. For some, his meaning was perfectly clear and understandable, while
for other who mocked and discredited Romney, it seems their choice was to look
through a dark glass of confusion, and ambiguity concerning the true meaning of
To Lagomorph in ones opinion your questions would be answered to your
satisfaction by your own in depth study.To Joe Blow For one who considers
life to be a precious gift from God, and who is diametrically opposed to your
take on life, renders further comment useless.