I’m sorry you’re wrong. Been trying to help.
It’s pretty clear to me you are shrugging off a question you don’t want to answer, which is fine; anyone else is invited to do so.
And that’s quite clearly an arbitrary distinction, no? I get that “closely-held” is being used to try to define a distinction between Hobby Lobby and, say, Microsoft, such that the former can have corporate religious freedom and the latter cannot or, as you confidently but unconvicingly declare, “it won’t happen.”
Okay, clearly we’re now in THE CAPITAL LETTERS PHASE, but I’d really rather see a cite from the legislature or the judiciary that actually says “unanimity of purpose” or comparable language, and how Hobby Lobby can have it but Microsoft apparantly cannot, or how as a matter of practicality Microsoft will never be able to express such.
I can understand if a distinction is to be made between what privately-held corporations can do and what publicly-traded corporations can do, but it will remain an arbitrary distinction regardless of how many CAPITAL LETTERS you want to throw at it.
Irrelevant - a presidential candidate who gets a majority, even a slim one, of California’s voters can claim all of California’s electoral votes. The candidate does not need unanimity and barring a cite, where does a corporation need it?
Is “unanimity of purpose” one of those constitutional penumbras, unstated but implied?
It’s no more arbitrary than between “for-profit,” and “non-profit.”
Because too many people, of too many different religious backgrounds and interests, have no realistic way of agreeing on a single religious purpose.
You complain about the capital letters and then go on to complete ignore what they were saying.
So I guess I’ll stifle the temptation to put bolded, colored, different font letters spelling out “of purpose.” Because the quote above shows you have no intention of paying the slightest heed to those words.
Sure it is. As you have pointed out a number of times, it is taken as read that a church can hold sincere religious beliefs even if it adopts a corporate form. Until now that clearly distinguished them from other corporations. Moreover, non-profits don’t have shareholders.
It’s a bit disingenuous for you to support the court’s decision on the ground that it stems from the unambiguous language of the RFRA (and Dictionary Act), yet distinguish public (or even nonpublic but not closely held) corporations. What text in either Act indicates that Congress intended to distinguish between closely held corporations and any other?
Sure, but that distinction is of no relevance to this topic.
It’s still unclear to me when “single religious purpose” became a necessary element. If the majority of shareholders vote that a corporation (public or private) adopt a single religious purpose, how does that not the become the corporation’s single religious purpose? If the views of the shareholders are needed to be known to establish “single religious purpose”, then is it necessary for any corporation so claiming to have all its shareholders deposed? Were all the Hobby Lobby owners so deposed?
Complain? No, I just observe that you’re offering emphasis instead of evidence, which I take as a sign of weakness in your position.
You can create an animated video of the letters in “unanimity of purpose” staging a Gilbert and Sullivan revue and post it on youTube if you like, but I’d really rather just have a cite from the legislature or judiciary where that phrase or at least the concept behind it was established and defined.
If you know of such a cite, let me know and then you can observe if I pay it sufficient heed. Until then, it’s just you making an unsupported claim and me not taking your word for it.
I have also invoked obvious examples of for-profit entities that clearly exercise religion, like the kosher meat market.
Also: I have noticed the trend of my opposition in this discussion imputing to me the idea that what are at issue are religious beliefs held by the corporation. What’s at issue is the corporation’s exercise of religion.
No text. The RFRA covers all.
But large, publicly-traded companies will not exercise religion. If they do, then sure enough the RFRA would cover them. But they won’t.
Maybe you should have made a better argument?
It’s just shorthand, though the latter requires the former in any event. Otherwise any discussion of the Dictionary Act is a canard, because the only thing we needed it for was to determine whether the RFRA applies to corporations.
Well, this brings us back to the underlying question: if a public corporation did “exercise religion”, how would we know if it was acting consistently with its sincerely held religious belief?
Question of fact.
That would be expected if the discussion were about the legal aspects of creating or running a taxonomy of butterflies business. (Taxonomy-R-Us?)
I see that substantial burden turtle heading again.
What is the substantial burden to their religion if they give health insurance, and that insurance is used, at the discretion of their employee, for something they don’t like. It sounds like the burden is dependent on the actions of another.
The law apparently just accepts that they are burdened, even if they are actually not. Meh.
A contradiction suggests that the burden may not be all that substantial.
Sure. I’m just wondering how someone else’s actions, out of sight of you, can infringe on your religion. This isn’t about outlawing communion wafers or forbidding mass on Sundays. This is about some asshole thinking that purchasing insurance that can be used by the employee in a way they don’t like is horrifying. Purchasing insurance at all supports those birth control options, so they are clearly okay with that.
The fact is that how an employees insurance is used has no impact whatsoever on the religious practice of the giver. It’s nothing but histrionic tantrums by believers because they feel the old world slipping away. Consider that HL was approached by a group to be the poster child. They see it as a cudgel to win a battle in the culture war. That’s not the same thing as being oppressed.
<3
I’m not so sure about that kosher meat market analogy. What, if anything, is the distinction between appealing to a customer base by declaring that you are adhering to their religious exercise, and simply adhering to one’s own religious beliefs? Many food products bear a symbol to attest that the food being offered meets certain standards in production or content that make the food product “kosher”. it is there to assure the customer, and has no actual implication that everyone who works for Keebler is a strictly observant Orthodox Jew.
Similarly, i see no real reason an entirely Christian enterprise might not consult with rabbis to ensure that their product complies with kosher standards as a gesture of good will and mutual respect. I would approve of such a gesture as complying with my standards for secular humanism, not being a dick, etc. But I would certainly not think of it as a religious exercise.
In short, quoting Sportin’ Life, it ain’t necessarily so.
Lobohan, you just aren’t capable of understanding this.
I already laid out, in specific and pertinent detail, the analytical steps to determine “substantial burden.” Your mental state does not permit you to even remember them.
And I have explained it.
You can answer each of your own questions.
What are the steps to determining if a religious burden is “substantial?”
Can anyone tell me where the phrase “unanimity of purpose” came from? Did Bricker coin it or does it appear in a statement by a member of Congress or the judiciary?
I’m not even asking for a definition at this point - just a source.
That’s true for some types of kosher products, elucidator, but not for meat. An animal must be slaughtered by a shochet. You can’t mark meat as kosher to assure the customer if the animal was not slaughtered by a shocet, even if the guy used the right knife the right way.
No. You see no real reason, I get that – but you have no interest or training in keeping kosher. An entirely Christian enterprise cannot slaughter meat and have it be kosher even if they “comply with kosher standards,” because the shochet must be Jewish.
The Christian butcher can hold the blade and say the words, but his slaughter is not kosher.
And why do you guys keep saying. “I don’t see any reason…”
IT’S NOT YOU THAT HAS TO SEE THE REASON.
How difficult is that concept to retain? Apparently, I could have taught you differential equations more easily than the concept that it’s not for a third-party reviewer to pass judgement on existence of the religious belief?
Shall we try that? I bet I can explain a first-order linear constant coefficient ordinary differential equation and you guys will understand it, and you’ll still be staring dumbly at the simple statement that you don’t get to judge the validity of someone else’s religious belief.
If you’re a judge, or a member of a jury, you might get to determine if they are sincere about holding the belief. But even then, you don’t get to judge its validity.
Now, let’s talk differential equations. F is a particular function of x, y, and derivatives of y. With me so far?
Why are you discriminating against mathtards? We have rights too, you know!
Why are you on this board filled with laypersons (many of whom are not even American) if the task of explaining the American legal process is so frustrating for you? As far as I know, you’re not getting paid for it, nor is there any professional advantage in it.
Did a judge sentence you to community service 15 years ago and you’re still working it off?
No, you can get this.
A derivative. That’s a real simple concept. A derivative of a function is a representation of how quickly quantities in that function change at various points.
So we can imagine an equation that shows us distance traveled over time.
x – distance traveled
u – the initial velocity
t – the time traveled
a – the acceleration applied to the object
so we might say x = ut + (1/2)(a)(t[sup]2[/sup])
Right? Drop the box off the building. How far has it gone in 3 seconds? Zero initial velocity, 9.8 m.sec[sup]2[/sup] acceleration due to gravity:
x = (0)(3) + (1/2)(9.8)(3[sup]2[/sup])
Right?
Now, the first derivative of that equation is velocity. It tells us how fast the box is going at any given moment in time. That’s all a derivative is.
OK, I’ll stop. But did that make more sense, or less, than “You don’t get to judge the validity of someone else’s religious belief?”
This isn’t trying to teach collateral estoppel, or hearsay, or the rule against perpetuities. (The latter of which I’m still fuzzy on, and I passed the class).
It’s a very simple proposition. People are not missing it because of an inability to comprehend. (Excepting Lobohan). They are deliberately blocking it from their minds.
No, there’s no professional advantage. It’s just a personal mission.