This is the very first thing that occurred to me, truly, and not just individuals, but corporations, too, and my wondering how the courts might parse that argument out.
That is, roughly outlined, I'm not sure how the court distinguishes between a corporation claiming an exemption to the healthcare bc, (mandated by a law), and the idea of providing tax funding (again, mandated by a law) for the killing of innocents in various corners of the globe. After all, as far as those corporate souls most concerned about this issue, both mandated expenditures are for the use of arguably unjustified killing prohibited by the fifth/sixth commandment.
And, needless to say, the list could go on.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 29/11/12 04:32 (UTC)That is, roughly outlined, I'm not sure how the court distinguishes between a corporation claiming an exemption to the healthcare bc, (mandated by a law), and the idea of providing tax funding (again, mandated by a law) for the killing of innocents in various corners of the globe. After all, as far as those corporate souls most concerned about this issue, both mandated expenditures are for the use of arguably unjustified killing prohibited by the fifth/sixth commandment.
And, needless to say, the list could go on.