Can a company be "Christian"?

[Pokinfun]

I made that statement poorly, I was tired. I should have said, I think there should be health exchanges, where individuals can purchase health insurance. I do not want my tax money used to pay for someone else’s insurance. Also, I do not like the part that caused people to lose their insurance to force them into the exchange to offset the cost for other people.

wtf?.

The amendment really only applies to Congress, they have extended it to individuals, they can extend religion and speech to a corporation without saying a corporation is a person.

I can't in good conscience troll you. You wanna support HL because they're "conservative" go ahead. Surely you see the danger if HL wins, Corporation's become people. When that happens, Iit will and already has, nullify your voice in Political matters. Not only will they not have to provide insurance but they will then have a right to any and all you private business; such as Dr./Patient records or even as bad your financial business.

That's the danger, support accordingly.

 

[TedKennedy]

Well, maybe the bigger point would be - the guv has no right to dictate healthcare coverage to anyone.
But as for defining a company as Christian for the sake of this argument, I'd say yes.
If an organization can be deemed by our own guv as "terrorist", because some of it's profits went to a mosque that supported "terrorists", then a company ought to be able to be defined as "Christian".
Of course it's all horse droppings anyway, HL is a business like any other, what they're doing now is free advertising, plus the outside shot at avoiding conforming with a bad law. So in one way, I'd like to see'em beat it, in another, I think they ought to be subject to the same rules as anyone else.

 

[RickN]

OK that was interesting.

 

[RickN]

This is not about free advertising or just trying not to pay for healthcare. They are really that religious and try to follow their beliefs. They have been that way for as long as I have known about them, and that goes back to the 70s. They even have one of the largest privately owned collection of antique bibles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Collection

As for their retirement investments, I bet if we looked at some of the left wing owned companies we could find all kinds of things that do not fit what they preach. Mainly because most people do not have direct control over their investments in these kinds of funds.

Almost forgot, if you have not heard of them Google "Little Sisters of the Poor" They are an order of nuns that run nursing homes for the poor. The government is trying to force the same thing on them.

 

[dugsok]

It would be interesting to see how all the business conform to Islam to run a business in the Muslim area of Detroit area

 

[Hobbes]

This is not about free advertising or just trying not to pay for healthcare. They are really that religious and try to follow their beliefs. They have been that way for as long as I have known about them, and that goes back to the 70s. They even have one of the largest privately owned collection of antique bibles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Collection

As for their retirement investments, I bet if we looked at some of the left wing owned companies we could find all kinds of things that do not fit what they preach. Mainly because most people do not have direct control over their investments in these kinds of funds.

Almost forgot, if you have not heard of them Google "Little Sisters of the Poor" They are an order of nuns that run nursing homes for the poor. The government is trying to force the same thing on them.

And they are not litigating all the way to the SCOTUS for an exemption from the law on the basis of it violating their religion either.

 

[Lurker66]

It would be interesting to see how all the business conform to Islam to run a business in the Muslim area of Detroit area

Even more interesting would be to see how all the other Christian owned companies are dealing with this. If this is such a trampling on of rights and a BLATENT attack on Christians or even Religion, Why aint the Mega Churchs funding the fight? Where's the Leadership of these great televangelist that get $millions stolen from the safe??

Unless they are just sacrificing HL, which wouldn't be very Christian.

 

[TedKennedy]

And they are not litigating all the way to the SCOTUS for an exemption from the law on the basis of it violating their religion either.

Exactly.
In my confusing post earlier, I was trying to say, the gov has no hesitation defining an organization as terrorist, or criminal, holding all members of said organization responsible for criminal acts committed by others within the organization. (see RICO laws)

So, why shouldn't a company be blessed with the same right to "label" itself and proclaim legal protection, kind on the inverse of the gov labeling an organization and stripping its rights?
But again, this is all horse droppings, HL throwing the dice, if they win, they beat a bad law. If they lose, it's "Christian rights trampled by SCOTUS", more advertising, more sympathetic folks headed to buy HL goods.

 

[RickN]

And they are not litigating all the way to the SCOTUS for an exemption from the law on the basis of it violating their religion either.

Because the only religion they have is power and you guys are handing it to them on a silver platter.

Face it guys, one of the first things communist do is try to wipe out religion. They did it in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, N Korea, etc, etc.

 

[Hobbes]

In a case from the state of Oregon, the court ruled that peyote, even if used as a sacrament, is an illegal substance and people could justifiably be denied unemployment benefits if they were fired from their jobs for taking the drug.

“We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate,’’ Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion.

Granting members of the Native American Church a religious exemption from the law against taking peyote, Scalia wrote, would “open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind,” ranging from compulsory military service, the payment of taxes, manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, traffic laws, minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races.

“The First Amendment's protection of religious liberty does not require this,’’ Scalia wrote.

That was Antonin Scalia then, well see which Scalia shows up this time.
-