|
evilweasel posted:You're being willfully obtuse, not Ginsburg. First, that a for-profit corporation can have a religious belief is absurd. Second, the RFRA was passed in a specific context that is listed in its preamble, all of which you've willfully ignored because the history and context makes clear that what was being overturned was the rule that a law of general applicability was not a substantial burden on an individual's freedom of religion rights. It was not to make a new rule out of thin air and so your attempt to argue that the context of the words immediately surrounding it is all that one would look at is absurd.
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 17:57 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:You're being willfully obtuse, not Ginsburg. First, that a for-profit corporation can have a religious belief is absurd. Second, the RFRA was passed in a specific context that is listed in its preamble, all of which you've willfully ignored because the history and context makes clear that what was being overturned was the rule that a law of general applicability was not a substantial burden on an individual's freedom of religion rights. It was not to make a new rule out of thin air and so your attempt to argue that the context of the words immediately surrounding it is all that one would look at is absurd. It's important to note that only Sotomayor joined that part of the dissent. Breyer and Kagan explicitly did not join the part of the opinion that said that the RFRA does not apply to for-profit corporations. While I doubt it majorly changes your opinion, you're arguing in favor of a 2-person dissent, not a 4-person one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:I don't see how the lack of tax exemption suddenly changes things for a corporation. As far as general going into business is concerned, I think the Boy Scouts certainly do have a religious message if they're selling popcorn or whatever. It was an undecided issue in the way that many issues in the law that have a blindly obvious answer don't actually have any precedent on point: because it's an argument so inane that nobody thought it passed the laugh test and even tried it (a surprisingly common problem when someone comes up with a really dumb argument you need to address in a brief). A corporation by definition cannot have a religion because it doesn't actually have thoughts or beliefs. We extend 'religious' rights to non-profits that are created to advance religious activities as a shorthand for allowing the people involved to exercise their religious rights through the (non-profit) corporate form or other legal organizations. The tax exemption mirrors the relevant point: that the organization is created for solely religious goals so extending it religious rights is a helpful way of preserving the underlying people's rights. All of this is so well understood nobody needs to think or elaborate on why, say, the Roman Catholic Church can operate as a non-profit and we extend it religious rights. It's not because the law recognizes the church as a thinking living thing, it's because that's a good way to respect the religious rights of the people involved and because failing to recognize those religious entities would make it impossible for those religious people to exercise their religion properly. It is a legal fiction, invoked sparingly only when the underlying reasons support it. This distinction is important because the point of a for-profit corporation is to make money. It is absurd to argue that the organization has religious beliefs because they don't need to run a store in order to meet the dictates of their religion. We have no compelling reason we would find that we need to treat a chain of stores as having a religious belief. The legal fiction entirely breaks down because the reasoning underlying it - that we need to recognize the non-profit organizations that people use to exercise their faith through in order to properly preserve their religious rights - doesn't apply. Instead we have an organization that exists to make profit, that can be sold for profit, claiming it has religious rights. That's absurd and there's no reason that any sane person would think that was intended by the context.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
@SCOTUSblog is trolling up a storm this afternoon, thanks to people who this it's the official Supreme Court account. That's just a small sample.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
esquilax posted:It's important to note that only Sotomayor joined that part of the dissent. Breyer and Kagan explicitly did not join the part of the opinion that said that the RFRA does not apply to for-profit corporations. While I doubt it majorly changes your opinion, you're arguing in favor of a 2-person dissent, not a 4-person one. They didn't join it because they found it unnecessary to reach that point, they do not agree or disagree: quote:JUSTICE BREYER and JUSTICE KAGAN, dissenting. I disagree with them that there was no need to decide that issue but it's arguable either way. I'd say it's a threshold issue to determine if the RFRA even applies. They basically seem to say that the RFRA wouldn't bar this regardless of if the RFRA applies or not, so no need to reach the issue of which persons can assert RFRA protection. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Jun 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Ginsbergs overriding principle in this dissent mostly seems to be so that the con law students of 2114 can write papers about how there was at least one sane person in the Roberts court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:Ginsbergs overriding principle in this dissent mostly seems to be so that the con law students of 2114 can write papers about how there was at least one sane person in the Roberts court. It's more so that once Scalia or Thomas kicks it, the decision overturning this garbage can just be basically her dissent copy-pasted with the word "dissent" changed to "holding of the court".
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It was an undecided issue in the way that many issues in the law that have a blindly obvious answer don't actually have any precedent on point: because it's an argument so inane that nobody thought it passed the laugh test and even tried it (a surprisingly common problem when someone comes up with a really dumb argument you need to address in a brief). If it's such a dumb argument how do you explain Gallagher v. Crown Kosher? quote:A corporation by definition cannot have a religion because it doesn't actually have thoughts or beliefs. We extend 'religious' rights to non-profits that are created to advance religious activities as a shorthand for allowing the people involved to exercise their religious rights through the (non-profit) corporate form or other legal organizations. The tax exemption mirrors the relevant point: that the organization is created for solely religious goals so extending it religious rights is a helpful way of preserving the underlying people's rights. All of this is so well understood nobody needs to think or elaborate on why, say, the Roman Catholic Church can operate as a non-profit and we extend it religious rights. It's not because the law recognizes the church as a thinking living thing, it's because that's a good way to respect the religious rights of the people involved and because failing to recognize those religious entities would make it impossible for those religious people to exercise their religion properly. It is a legal fiction, invoked sparingly only when the underlying reasons support it. What pre-RFRA law created this distinction? All I can find is courts letting nonprofits make religious claims because of the First Amendment, not Congressional munificience.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:If it's such a dumb argument how do you explain Gallagher v. Crown Kosher? Wait so you're telling me there's even precedent for the law overriding the religious objections of the owners of for-profit organizations? gently caress me sideways I hate our current Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:If it's such a dumb argument how do you explain Gallagher v. Crown Kosher? That it has nothing to do with what you're claiming? The essential argument Crown Kosher made (and lost) was that the blue laws were unconstitutional establishments of religion and the Court ruled that they were valid on the secular ground of giving everyone a day of rest. There is no problem with a for-profit company claiming a law is invalid on first amendment grounds because it's an unconstitutional establishment of religion. They had standing because the blue laws severely cut into their profits. Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:What pre-RFRA law created this distinction? All I can find is courts letting nonprofits make religious claims because of the First Amendment, not Congressional munificience. I don't really know how to answer this question besides point out the mere fact you're asking it means you really, really don't understand what's going on here. The point is the RFRA is explicitly intended to just go into that existing court doctrinal development and overturn Smith. You're not finding any law on point because Congress wasn't making law on the subject before, and the RFRA explicitly incorporates all of those decisions and is basically "no, this one instead of that one". You cannot understand the RFRA without looking to those cases and the RFRA's findings are part of the law in order to make that very clear.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:So today could have been far worse. That's what I'm going to tell myself so I can sleep tonight. You could always move to Australia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:That it has nothing to do with what you're claiming? The essential argument Crown Kosher made (and lost) was that the blue laws were unconstitutional establishments of religion and the Court ruled that they were valid on the secular ground of giving everyone a day of rest. There is no problem with a for-profit company claiming a law is invalid on first amendment grounds because it's an unconstitutional establishment of religion. They had standing because the blue laws severely cut into their profits. That was one of the arguments. The other one was quote:Secondly, appellees contend that the application to them of the Sunday Closing Laws prohibits the free exercise of their religion. Crown alleges that, if it is required by law to abstain from business on Sunday, then, because its owners' religion demands closing from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, Crown will be open only four and one-half days a week, thereby suffering extreme economic disadvantage. Crown's Orthodox Jewish customers allege that, because their religious beliefs forbid their shopping on the Jewish Sabbath, the statutes' effect is to deprive them, from Friday afternoon until Monday of each week, of the opportunity to purchase the kosher food sanctioned by their faith. The orthodox rabbis allege that the statutes' effect greatly complicates their task of supervising the condition of kosher meat because the meat delivered on Friday would have to be kept until Monday. Furthermore, appellees contend that, because of all this, the statutes discriminate against their religion. The dissenters would have struck down the law based on free exercise infringement. quote:I don't really know how to answer this question besides point out the mere fact you're asking it means you really, really don't understand what's going on here. The point is the RFRA is explicitly intended to just go into that existing court doctrinal development and overturn Smith. You're not finding any law on point because Congress wasn't making law on the subject before, and the RFRA explicitly incorporates all of those decisions and is basically "no, this one instead of that one". You cannot understand the RFRA without looking to those cases and the RFRA's findings are part of the law in order to make that very clear. You said quote:We extend 'religious' rights to non-profits that are created to advance religious activities as a shorthand for allowing the people involved to exercise their religious rights through the (non-profit) corporate form or other legal organizations. It sounded as if you were implying there was some pre-existing statutory scheme that extended RFRA-like religious rights based on nonprofit status. Unless the courts decided that only corporations organized under a nonprofit provision of their state law had free exercise rights, which would be bizarre.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:You could always move to Australia. No thanks. I've read the AusPol thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if hypothetically there were no corporate income tax there would no longer be a meaningful distinction between nonprofit and for-profit corporations, correct? Despite the name, nonprofits are already allowed to earn vast amounts of money through various enterprises (including running stores that resemble for-profit entities in every way) -- they can even be 100% owners of for-profit corporations. They can basically do everything a for-profit company can, except pay profits to shareholders. In that light, it seems a little weird to have one jurisprudence saying nonprofits can exercise religion while for-profits can't, especially since there doesn't seem to be any jurisprudence about how all of this is tied to corporate income taxes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
My roommate is saying that this ruling is fine because people aren't forced to work for any company; they choose to, and they can choose to leave, so the company isn't forcing its religion on its workers. Can someone better at debating than me rebut this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
razorrozar posted:My roommate is saying that this ruling is fine because people aren't forced to work for any company; they choose to, and they can choose to leave, so the company isn't forcing its religion on its workers. Can someone better at debating than me rebut this? Unemployment rate > 0
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
razorrozar posted:My roommate is saying that this ruling is fine because people aren't forced to work for any company; they choose to, and they can choose to leave, so the company isn't forcing its religion on its workers. Can someone better at debating than me rebut this? Essentially, sole proprietorship, partnerships, and closely held companies said their agency trumps those of their employees. More seriously, these companies account for like 70 percent of business of the United States and the Supreme Court said it's totally cool to impose your religious beliefs on abortion/contraception because reasons but reasons of other people outside of contraceptives is not good reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
razorrozar posted:My roommate is saying that this ruling is fine because people aren't forced to work for any company; they choose to, and they can choose to leave, so the company isn't forcing its religion on its workers. Can someone better at debating than me rebut this? If you can't rebut this why do you disagree? I never understood this kind of thing; like, if you're fundamentally unaware of a response to something, why do you irrationally reject it? Sorry if I sound like a dick, just see it all the time in D&D. Anyway, that's bullshit because when people work for a company, it is fundamentally a contract; the person is providing their skills and labor and the company is to provide previously-agreed-upon compensation. The company has no right to dictate how its workers use their compensation - even if a contract stipulated that, it'd almost certainly be thrown out of court - and this ruling is a form of that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
razorrozar posted:My roommate is saying that this ruling is fine because people aren't forced to work for any company; they choose to, and they can choose to leave, so the company isn't forcing its religion on its workers. Can someone better at debating than me rebut this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KT4vhl8slbE Also the slippery slope precedent this case sets. Also what's to stop almost any other company from doing the same thing? Something like 90% of all corporations fit the definition of "closely held". So find another job doesn't really work.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
razorrozar posted:My roommate is saying that this ruling is fine because people aren't forced to work for any company; they choose to, and they can choose to leave, so the company isn't forcing its religion on its workers. Can someone better at debating than me rebut this? Your roommate is also silently saying "and if they can't find another job they can either be abused/oppressed or starve in the streets" It's victim blaming of a sort-putting the onus on the abused employee to fix their situation- combined with utter ignorance about the realities of getting a job.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Beamed posted:If you can't rebut this why do you disagree? I never understood this kind of thing; like, if you're fundamentally unaware of a response to something, why do you irrationally reject it? Sorry if I sound like a dick, just see it all the time in D&D. It's possible to know something is wrong without being able to express it well, which is presumably what he was asking for help with. I've had times where my internal logic for an argument was incredibly nebulous and hazy until halfway through the argument it clicked into place and I knew exactly what I meant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
the yeti posted:Your roommate is also silently saying "and if they can't find another job they can either be abused/oppressed or starve in the streets" I actually brought this point up and he went from implicit victim blaming to explicit victim blaming. He seems to think that if a company treats its employees badly it'll get social-Darwin-ed out of existence.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
razorrozar posted:My roommate is saying that this ruling is fine because people aren't forced to work for any company; they choose to, and they can choose to leave, so the company isn't forcing its religion on its workers. Can someone better at debating than me rebut this? In your roommates' non-existent libertopia, people are completely unencumbered free agents, able to change employers on a whim to find better conditions. In reality, people have to eat regularly and pay bills. Getting a different job is difficult and time-consuming. Moving to a different city is expensive and complicated. Hence, they actually have very limited options for alternative employment. Meanwhile, employers have the money and power and can decide independently whom to employ and where. Economic and political power are tilted hugely in favor of the employers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:In your roommates' non-existent libertopia, people are completely unencumbered free agents, able to change employers on a whim to find better conditions. Let me quote what he said: "If they can't find another job they should live with it and be thankful they aren't starving."
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
razorrozar posted:I actually brought this point up and he went from implicit victim blaming to explicit victim blaming. He seems to think that if a company treats its employees badly it'll get social-Darwin-ed out of existence. This is why Walmart is nothing but a footnote in the pages of history. Wait
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
Magres posted:It's possible to know something is wrong without being able to express it well, which is presumably what he was asking for help with. I suppose that's true, I'm just concerned that this forum gets too caught up in the "my team vs. their team" mentality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
razorrozar posted:Let me quote what he said: Tell him to apply the same reasoning to the other decision this morning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
razorrozar posted:Let me quote what he said: And if they ARE starving they should be thankful they're not covered in bees and on fire.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
Beamed posted:I suppose that's true, I'm just concerned that this forum gets too caught up in the "my team vs. their team" mentality. I felt like there was something wrong with it, especially in light of his other comments, but part of the reason I was asking was because I knew that might be knee-jerk on my part and I wanted to know whether he had a point or not.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Am I correct or incorrect in thinking that the Court didn't rule whether the Free Exercise clause applied, just whether for profit corporations fit into the exemptions carved out in the RFRA?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
razorrozar posted:Let me quote what he said: Tell your roommate the ghost of Jacob Marley is likely to pay him a visit tonight.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
razorrozar posted:I actually brought this point up and he went from implicit victim blaming to explicit victim blaming. He seems to think that if a company treats its employees badly it'll get social-Darwin-ed out of existence. razorrozar posted:Let me quote what he said: Push him off a bridge, then.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
the yeti posted:Push him off a bridge, then. He's not normally this much of a shithead, I swear. I don't know why today has become lovely Opinion Day in our apartment. His main reasoning is that by forcing the corporation to provide medical care that violates the owners' religious beliefs, they are violating the First Amendment rights of the owner. He refuses to differentiate between the owner as a person and the corporation as an entity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
razorrozar posted:He's not normally this much of a shithead, I swear. I don't know why today has become lovely Opinion Day in our apartment. *unless it's a matter of liability, of course. It's lovely opinion day everywhere. I have read too many Facebook posts wondering if Jehovah's Witnesses or Christian Scientists will stop offering blood transfusions and vaccinations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
razorrozar posted:Let me quote what he said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlRQjzltaMQ&t=105s You might find more help with rebutting arguments in the Help D&D Debate & Discuss or the Crazy political forwards threads though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Beamed posted:I suppose that's true, I'm just concerned that this forum gets too caught up in the "my team vs. their team" mentality. It can sometimes, but people generally justify why the other team is dumb and lovely beyond "well cause it's their team" in my experience.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Mooseontheloose posted:Essentially, sole proprietorship, partnerships, and closely held companies said their agency trumps those of their employees. Sole proprietorships and partnerships could already do this, and almost all of the 70% of businesses that you mentioned only employ their owners
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:*unless it's a matter of liability, of course. I just brought this up and he said he thinks the owner SHOULD be liable. So I guess his argument has internal consistency if nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
razorrozar posted:I just brought this up and he said he thinks the owner SHOULD be liable. So I guess his argument has internal consistency if nothing else. So basically he thinks corporations shouldn't exist?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 17:57 |
|
|
razorrozar posted:Let me quote what he said: Why are you asking an internet forum on how to argue with a friend instead of just outright mocking said friend?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2014 01:26
|
|
