Vikings stadium food contract goes to Aramark

About 80 percent of stadium food is hot dogs, nachos, popcorn and beer. (delish.com image)

Aramark will be doing the cooking at the new Vikings stadium when it opens in 2016.

The Philadelphia-based company cooks and sells the food at Chicago’s Soldier Field, Lincoln Financial Field in Philadelphia, Reliant Stadium in Houston and 10 other NFL stadiums, as well as TCF Bank Stadium at the University of Minnesota.

It also provides the suite catering in the Metrodome.

Terms of the deal haven’t been finalized. The Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority today agreed to negotiate exclusively with Aramark, which beat out five other bidders for the work, including Delaware North, Morrissey Hospitality, Centerplate, Legends and Levy Restaurants.

“Everyone we’ve talked to as we’ve visited other stadiums has told us you can’t bring the concessionaire on early enough. The earlier in the design process, the better,” stadium authority chairwoman Michele Kelm-Helgen said. “Aramark has an unbelievable track record.”

Popcorn, hot dogs, nachos and beer typically make up about 80 percent of stadium food sales, “but there’s a growing group of people that want to have other selections, and want to have something else, other than your standard stadium food,” Kelm-Helgen said. That may mean a year-round restaurant built into the stadium, she added.

Vikings team vice president Lester Bagley said Aramark pitched a food service concept that will “bring local flavors, local restaurants into the mix.”

Aramark may also be tasked to offer food outside the stadium, on the plaza out front, for non-Vikings events.

  • Jeff Fournier

    That is unfortunate. Our company changed from Sodexo to Aramark last year and the food quality has diminished significantly in my opinion.
    This approach does not seem to match the increasing sophistication of palettes and demand in the Twin Cities, again in my opinion.

  • Jeff Fournier

    That is unfortunate. Our company changed from Sodexo to Aramark last year and the food quality has diminished significantly in my opinion.
    This approach does not seem to match the increasing sophistication of palates and demand in the Twin Cities, again in my opinion.

  • Brittany

    Absolutely not. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion, and corporations should not be treated as people—they are for-profit and should have to abide by the same laws.

    “What if your employer was a Jehovah Witness and didn’t want to allow your insurance provider to pay for needed blood, would that be OK?
    What if your employer was a Christian Scientist and didn’t want your insurance provider to pay for most medical procedures, would that be OK?

    What if your employer was a Scientologists who didn’t want your insurance provider to pay for pharmaceutical psychiatry, like antidepressants, which treat disparate disorders such as clinical depression, dysthymia, anxiety, and eating disorders, would that be OK?

    What if your employer was a member of a faith-healing church such as the Faith Tabernacle Congregation or First Century Gospel Church and was strictly opposed to the use of almost any healthcare, and didn’t want your insurance provider to pay for anything but the most basis, rudimentary services, would that be OK?

    What if your employer didn’t believe in any form of vaccination and didn’t want your insurance provider to pay for vaccinations for you and your children, would that be OK?”

    • Gayle

      Brittany – I agree with your arguement 100%. I wonder if the unintended consequence of this ruling will be a cascade of corporate health-care challenges as you described, which will eventually result in the development and implementation of a single-payer system; one that is divorced from the employer’s religious beliefs.

  • Mason

    They are groups of people. People shouldn’t lose the rights they have as individuals just because they have formed a group.

    I don’t agree with them on this, but part of living in a free society means that other people can do things you don’t like (and you can do things they don’t like).

    • Gary F

      no one is saying you cant buy your own birth control, it is saying that you can’t force someone to buy it for you if they object to it on religious grounds.

      How about if a Muslim owned business objects? Is that OK?

      • Mason

        If had actually read my comment, you would know the answer.

        • Gary F

          This decision says nothing about whether a company wants to stop someone from using contraceptives, its whether a company is forced to pay for it.,

          • Ralphy

            Gayle’s point – If the product or service is now to be paid for by the tax-payer, isn’t Holly Hobby paying for it any way, just in a rather round-about way?
            I’ll take it one step farther – If the employee buys their own form of health care with their own money earned from Hobby Lobby, isn’t Hobby Lobby paying for it any way?
            Or are you arguing that Hobby Lobby should be able to reduce their employees pay by the amount the objectionable health care procedure costs?
            Insurance is not a gift, it is part of the compensation package. So, in effect, Hobby Lobby, and others, are doing exactly that – cutting their employees pay if they utilize a health care procedure that the company objects to.

      • Gayle

        This is not about specific religions having the right to opt-out of certain coverages, it is about the private business sector opting out of covering certain health care procedures based on religious objections. In any event, to your first point, if the product or service is now to be paid for by the tax-payer, isn’t Holly Hobby paying for it any way, just in a rather round-about way? Besides the excellent points made by Brittany below, one could take the argument one step further, and using your Muslim owned business example, could that business owner, on religious grounds, opt out of their tax dollars being used to paying for any government interest payments? Could a member of the Religous Society of Friends (Quakers) or a Buddhist opt out of paying any taxes that support the military? Mason is correct in his statement regarding living in a free society. This great experiment called democracry is that we all have rights, including the right to voice our disagreements, and that often means there must be some give in one’s convictions and life choices for the greater good.

  • Gary F
  • busdriver37

    A corporation is not a person. Therefore, a corporation has no religious rights to violate. End of story.

  • Joe

    My book says “reder unto Caesar,” not “render unto the IRS,” so CLEARLY I don’t have to pay any taxes…

  • Mark in Ohio

    I recall during all of the health care discussions before and around the passage of the health care law, people were supposed to get their health care through their employment as the primary source. The marketplaces were to open up healthcare to more people who didn’t have business-based access. I seem to recall that there are even penalties for businesses that don’t. It seems to me that by allowing corporations to reject any portions of the healthcare mandates, you are undermining this concept and creating an unfair playing field. Religious based businesses can now get coverage cheaper because they don’t have to pay for everything.

    Having a business provide a standard level of healthcare coverage for their employees doesn’t infringe on their religious freedom, it prevents them from enforcing their religious beliefs on me. The contents of the healthcare plans aren’t some sort of “gift” from the employer to the employee, and the employer is not buying anything for it’s employees. The cost of benefits is an acknowledged part of the cost of doing business, and the employee is either generating the revenue that pays for the costs of them, or the business will soon be going under.

  • Jim G

    No. Religious owners of corporations should not be allowed to refuse to follow laws enacted by legitimate governments. This Supreme Court decision by the conservatives block of justices will be interpreted as another attack on women and their right to control their own bodies. I hope women and those who support them will use their votes this November to assure that Democrats maintain control the Senate, which confirms Supreme Court nominees.

    • Gary F

      The right to control their own bodies means that other people need to pay for their contraceptives?

      If a woman wants to defend her body with a gun should we force employers to buy her ammo?

      • Joe

        How expensive is ammo and what kind of hoops do you have to jump through to get access to this ammo? Are there age restrictions on the purchase of this ammo? Do you need parental consent to get access to this ammo?

      • Jim G

        Your metaphor does not compute. Here’s one I thought of based in my personal experience in dealing with the government. I’m one of six members in my family who own a farm, it is organized as a corporation (LLC). We have CRP contracts with the Federal Government . One of the conditions of the contracts is that we must control noxious weeds. That means we must spray poison on our property every year. You know that I’m one of those tree hugging, gopher loving, environmentalist, right? Now suppose that our closely held corporation decided for religious reasons that we weren’t going to poison a single organism on our farm. (BTW, we’d also save hundreds of dollars in chemicals we’d no longer buy, and about 100 man hours in application operations.) Should we be allowed to do this? What would be the ramifications for our neighboring farms? You see, if we all get to pick our own religious tenets and claim that our beliefs trump everything else, we’ll have chaos, and that’s where the conservative justices left us after yesterday’s misjudgment.

        • JDan

          You could hand pick the weeds or not take the CRP money.

          • JDan

            Principals cannot be compromised and still be your beliefs.

          • Christian Ross

            You could not run a business if the consequences of providing health insurance are too onerous.

        • Jamie

          If we all get to pick our own religious tenets…

          I know of a country that was formed on that basis.

  • Mary

    When is the last time anyone saw a corporation in church? What about woman who’s doctor prescribes birth control pills to treat a condition that has nothing to do with preventing pregnancy? Should they be denied insurance coverage for that, and if they were being treated before they got insurance that would be a pre-existing condition. This isn’t a black and white issue. A company should have absolutely nothing to do with an employee’s health care. That should be between a woman or man and their doctor. Period.

    • JDan

      Than pay for it outside of the work contract.

      • Mary

        Why? It is not being used in the way that would offend the corporations “religious beliefs.”

        • JDan

          Corporations are owned by people, Corporations = a group of 2 or more people. People have tremendous success running their corporations on biblical principals then we decide that we want to change the way they do things? Government should not have that kind of power.

          • Joe

            I don’t think that corporations that give away all their possessions and follow Jesus find that much “success”, at least in the way that corporations function under modern capitalism.

          • JDan

            Way to take two verses out of the entire Bible. That puts you in the same category as those folks that picket funerals.

          • Joe

            My apologies, I didn’t see how what I said was hateful, except maybe the mention of the word capitalism, I know that’s a trigger word for some people. I’m just curious to know what those corporate biblical principles are, because I’m lost here.

          • JDan

            I did not say hate. I am just saying that if you only look at tiny parts of the bible you can rationalize anything. I am still not sure how those crazies rationalize what they do. Tenants of a Christ centered business (in my opinion) *1*. Integrity – I think this goes without saying and covers most others. If you live with integrity, you will not be hurting others and you will be fair, your business will succeed as long as there is a need for your service. 2. Generosity – the bible does ask the individual members of their business to give, but as christian based business there is a strong need to give back to the community, as well. Through volunteerism, donations, etc. 3. Excellence – “Do everything as unto the lord” 4. Morality – the bible does lay out some important morals(most are covered by the 10 commandments and the golden rule). I am sure there is more and I have only been to a HL once and do not know their business. I did work for a terrible person that said he ran a christian business, but he failed the integrity test. So who knows.

          • Joe

            I wasn’t even looking at a tiny part of the Bible though, I was citing something Jesus was cited by the writers of the Gospel to have said Himself… but thank you for clarifying, I thought you thought I was being a hateful jerk which is not my intention, and which Fred Phelps proudly claimed to be, so I was a little taken aback by that comparison. And you are right, quoting the Bible is more or less a sin in direct violation of the ten commandments (Lord’s name in vain, right?), but at least I try to go for Jesus’ words when I do.

        • JDan

          I keep hearing the argument, “if you don’t agree with abortions don’t have one” well so you are saying that if you do not agree with abortions you should have to pay for one? That is the deal here,

          • Christian Ross

            I don’t agree with war, or drone strikes, or NSA metadata collection, yet somehow I have to pay for these things as a consequence of doing business here. The dollars paid in wages to employees could also be used to buy birth control, or lap dances, but no one is suing over that, so how is purchasing a group insurance plan as a form of employee compensation that could be used to obtain birth control any different?

          • theoacme

            I believe that the Republican Party is unconstitutional, as they impose a de facto religious test to hold political office (you must be Christian, exactly as they are, or else not only don’t you get nominated, not only are you called a false Christian, but you get called a taker and a traitor).

            As for corporations being allowed religious rights, I think imposing the Spanish Inquisition upon all corporations that are religious would be a good thing.

  • JDan

    How about we stop having our healthcare paid for by the government or directly by an employer. That would solve this issue. Birth control especially is a want and not a need.

    • Joe

      Most forms of birth control are formulated from part of the pharmacopoeia that have a range of uses in women’s health that have nothing to do with birth control, and restricting that access is arbitrary and potentially unhealthy. It’s unfair to characterize “birth control” as a “want.” I agree with your premise 100% though, tying health care to employer health benefits was a monumental historic mistake.

      • Mark in Ohio

        That’s probably one of the best things about the current system – it will prove that the only really viable system for our country is single payer, since having everyone have to pay for their own would leave the poor without access to health care and that would be deemed immoral by many of the same churches involved in this argument.

        • JDan

          Goods and services get better with the presence of competition. People involved have to work harder, compete on price and quality, and provide the best service to ensure they retain customers. When you get rid of all the competition you lose these natural controls and everyone suffers. So tell me how that will not happen with a “single payer system” Also where will Canadians go for their care, when they cannot see a doc. in Canada?

          • JDan

            Personal experience on the Canadian thing.

          • Mark in Ohio

            I’d say that the current state of our marketplace proves your argument is false, as our costs are rising and not related to inflation, and our outcomes (quality) are worse. Major companies control most of the medical facilities in many large regions, shutting out competition. Single payer may not be perfect, but it at least trims the fat from one group of middlemen out of the system, and gives the potential to try to control the system (not that I believe our corrupt political caste will implement anything like this).

          • Jamie

            And gives that trimmed fat to the ones at the top, increasing their corruption on the way.

        • theoacme

          But the churches that oppose birth control also oppose single-payer health care, and would happily let the poor die.

    • Mary

      Many medications are used to treat other conditions than what they are mainly used for. For many birth control falls into this category and is not a want it is a need.

      • JDan

        Then it would be a need and not birth control.

        • Joe

          Yep, a need for which Hobby Lobby is now not responsible, which other corporations are when offering health insurance at employment, giving them an unfair competitive advantage in the labor market. Why is the Supreme Court picking corporate winners and losers?

          • JDan

            What medications are used for abortions and other ailments? Hobby Lobby provides birth control pills, just not those that cause abortions.

          • Joe

            You are correct, Hobby Lobby provides some birth control pills in their plans (sixteen was it?), but the four they objected to surely don’t provide abortions by any stretch of the imagination and are not abortifacients in the typical sense of the word, especially not the IUDs which provide relief from other ailments. And it’s been covered quite well before in these comments on the Hobby Lobby fiasco. They dislike IUDs because, surprise surprise, they cost precious mammon. Sweet sweet corporate mammon…

          • JDan

            Mammon? IUD is a device that doesn’t allow a fertilized egg(arguably a human) attach to the uterus. What is a “abortifacient” if that is not?

          • Joe

            Mammon = money. And, the part where pregnancy (you know, what needs to happen before an abortion) doesn’t happen until the egg attaches to the uterus.

          • JDan

            This is the crutch of the argument. When does life begin?

          • Joe

            Life begins at incorporation

          • JDan

            Agree to disagree on this one.

          • theoacme

            Citizens United said so, JDan, thus said the Lord God Scalia.

          • JDan

            The supreme court does not decide when life begins.

          • Cat

            Not factual. The scientific consensus does not support this idea. Most scientists believe that IUDs interfere with the ability of sperm to get to an egg in time to fertilize it.

      • Jamie

        This ruling only affects IUDs and morning after pills – not your standard hormonal birth control pills that also regulate and minimize monthly cycles.

        • Dave V

          Not true. Hobby Lobby was against these forms of birth control, but the ruling applies to birth control as a category. Homonal regulation included.

  • PaulJ

    It depends on the type of corporation. There are all types of business law variances for different types of businesses. For example: You can vape in a bar but not in a courtroom.

    • Joe

      Can we still vape in bars? I thought it was recently passed that we need to step outside to inhale propylene glycol like cigarettes, at least in Minnesota.

      • Laura

        According to MPR,”Starting Tuesday, there’s no more vaping in day care centers, hospitals, clinics and other health care facilities. Ditto for buildings owned or operated by governments ranging from townships all the way up to the state, plus the University of Minnesota and Minnesota State Colleges and Universities systems… Restaurants and bars aren’t included in the ban, as private businesses are left to decide whether they want to do anything on their own to block use of e-cigarettes on their premises.”

  • Rich in Duluth

    No. Corporations are not people and should not have more rights than those afforded to people. I cannot choose which laws I will follow based on my philosophy. Therefore, the religious philosophy of business owners should have no bearing on the laws they must follow.

    Furthermore, the health care an individual receives should be up to the individual and not his employer or insurance company. This ruling is a primary reason why health care should be selected from evidence based procedures and remedies, and made available through private health care providers and paid for through a tax on every worker.

  • KTN

    No. As the Notorious RBG said in her dissent about for profit corporations they have, “no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires,” and so can’t have religious freedom rights”. I fully agree, corporations are not people, and to assign them rights is a substantial burden on those who don’t share those same beliefs.

    That the owners believe in their particular God is of no importance to me, but when they seek to skirt firmly held constitutional protection to force their beliefs on employees, it crosses the line from merely being a believer, to becoming a “my God is more important than your God”, which is untenable situation.

  • John Pastor

    People form corporations to shield themselves from personal liability arising from their business. Therefore, a corporation is not a person – it is something different. I’m surprised that the Supremes don’t seem to realize this. This apparently new legal fiction of corporations as persons, which seems to have started with Citizens United, has opened up a huge can of worms. Whatever religious beliefs an owner of a corporation has, they don’t have the right to impose them on their employees. Nobody’s making them take birth control pills so they should not deny the right to decide about that issue to others.

    I used to have faith in the Supreme Court as the one branch of government that seemed to work consistently well. No more. These guys are in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

  • Jamie

    I think many of you are missing out on the “closely held” corporation part of this ruling, but I could be mistaken. Corporations come in more than one flavor. Publicly traded corporations, like General Electric, 3M, Target, General Mills, etc. are not affected by this ruling. A closely held corporation is a corporation that has more than 50% of the value of its
    outstanding stock owned by 5 or fewer individuals.

    • Joe

      We are missing out because it doesn’t matter so much, the slope of slip is already well-lubricated. There’s a litany of big names similar to the ones you listed that fall under “closely held” as well, so the limited-impact picture you’re trying to paint is moot. Plus, let’s not forget that as of today’s date it feels like 50% of the world’s wealth is more or less held by 5 or fewer individuals… this ruling is pretty important and its impact should not be diminished.

    • Ann Williams

      That will be Cargil then. A major international employer.

  • Christian Ross

    The Supreme Court ruled previously that the ACA was legal on the basis that it is equivalent to a tax (not an unearned ‘gift’ provided to undeserving female employees as many lauding this decision seem to feel). There are many things my tax dollars pay for that I find conflict with my deeply held beliefs yet I doubt I would be allowed to not pay a portion of my taxes on the strength of that conviction. I question why a company has more right to determine how the tax they are mandated by law to pay for their employees health insurance can be used than I do as a citizen taxpayer.

    • Jamie

      They determined the penalty for not complying with the ACA was a tax, not that the ACA was a tax.

      • Christian Ross

        I must not understand the subtleties then, a tax one can choose not to pay if one buys a group coverage plan that provides birth control? Then why the lawsuit about not having an alternative to buying a plan that provides birth control? Simply pay the tax and be done with if your beliefs demand it.

        As a form of (not so) mandatory compensation, much like a minimum wage, I don’t see how companies get to choose what employees do with their compensation, regardless.

  • Jean M

    Yes. The Government has no business in my bedroom or in my Doctor’s office. They shouldn’t mandate much of anything. The government oversteps their purpose on a daily basis.
    Besides, the SCOTUS came to it’s decision largely on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Thank you Ted Kennedy who wrote it, Chuck Schumer who introduced it and President Clinton who signed it into law.

    • Dave V

      Ok, but doesnt the govenment mandate achieve exactly what you are espousing? By mandating blanket coverage, the coverage is available to anyone who needs it, with no entitly other than you and your doctor deciding. The mandate has nothing to do with government, it just makes the benefit available. By saying you disagree with the mandate aren’t you inviting your employer into your bedroom and your doctor’s office?

  • inez

    Sure but prove that that is the reason why and someone should post that they are doing so so we as individuals can decide to use them. And if they have sure strong religious beliefs they should not be able to get government contacts.

  • Tantric_lover

    The “christian” wealthy owners of the small businesses like Hobby Lobby, Heinz, the Koch brothers can do what there conscious requires. But they are not a church, oh they think they are a church, with tax exempt status protected by freedom of religion that is in place as the (anal retentive) Puritans insisted on as there religion had been persecuted in England. The owners pretend they are christian (no cap intentional) as they might love God, but they do not care about there neighbor let alone love them as Jesus mandated. I support the dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court as it is a dangerous precedent to say a business has right like a chruch.

    • John

      For many in our society, money is their god and the pursuit of it their religion. And they will say and do whatever serves them in getting closer to that god, even wrapping themselves in American Flags and espousing religious values they do not share.

      In America, follow the money … always.

    • JQP

      make them be a church in order to obtain that protection

  • Glenda Marsh

    Absolutely not! Get with it, we are a society, not a bunch mini-states. I object to what some of my tax dollars are used for, like bombing children, but I can’t opt out.

  • Jeffrey Swainhart

    No way. Opening the door to religious exceptions is a huge mistake. I suspect that the people behind the Hobby Lobby lawsuit are more interested in politics then religion.

  • JQP

    No.

    1) A corporation is not a religion. Sorry but that is true. Suppose the Christian owners son , who inherits the company converts to Islam, Satanism or Santa Ria … does he get to impose his new beliefs on the company ?

    2) it opens the door between church and state and business. Now that company that simply wanted to tweak the nose of the government based on the owners abuse of thier personal religion .. may find the government deciding that the company … to remain in compliance with its “religious” standing … now gets to perform some other “religious obligations”

    Separation of Church and State and Business entities is entirely necessary for a balanced country.

  • Yanotha Twangai

    One good thing about this misguided and obviously partisan SCOTUS decision: it may prove to be the beginning of the end of tying health insurance to employment, and perhaps even (I can dream, can’t I?) pave the way for single-payer. All of these glitches and hitches with Obamacare serve to show just how untenable is the idea that the health care marketplace can be regulated in such a way as to provide care equitably and compassionately for all citizens. We should learn from other industrialized countries. Their government-run systems are not perfect, but they’re a lot less bad than the mess we’ve made of it.

    Free markets do a good job with most sectors of the economy, but fail miserably in a few sectors. Health care is one of those few. Remove the burden of providing health care from employers, and free them up to do what they’re good at. It’s good for Canadian businesses, and it would be good for ours, too.

  • Jeff

    Corporations should be able to refuse all federal government mandates in general that don’t pertain to directly to safety. Most of those laws generate frivolous lawsuits and waste all of our time in courtrooms, if a person doesn’t run their business like you want then let the media know and boycott it…we don’t need a federal mandate to force a business owner to do something he doesn’t want to do.

    • Ralphy

      Corporations shouldn’t have to pay taxes? Abide by
      non-discrimination laws? Pay a minimum wage? Not allow unions? Engage in child
      labor? Honor contracts? Require employees to support a specific political candidate? Violate the privacy of their employees and
      competitors? Engage in insider trading? The list goes on, but I hope you get my
      point. My point is WOW!

      Since corporations are people, are you saying that people should be able to refuse all federal government mandates in general that don’t pertain directly to safety?

      • Jeff

        Yes, if people are demanding that corporations shouldn’t have free speech rights, then fine don’t make them pay taxes since individuals pay taxes when they receive money from the corporations anyway. The state can hold corporations to contracts, insider trading is a joke (it’s just people talking)…is it insider trading if an assembly line worker tells a friend that his workload has increased/decreased significantly and that friend buys/sells that stock? Corporations are made up of people so without them the corporation is nothing…the people have the rights and therefore they keep those rights while owning a corporation. If you don’t like how a business operates use the media and boycott, stop using government.

        • Dave V

          Ok, I get it. This is obviously a joke. Good one!

          • Jeff

            Corporations don’t really pay taxes anyway…they raise prices so consumers pay. All wages are deductions to businesses and those wages are taxed. I’m amazed by the ignorance around the corporate tax code that the general population shows on a daily basis.

          • JQP

            Actually that argument, that corporations are aggregators and cost-passers … means they are the single most efficient means for collecting taxes and should be utilized.

            Eliminate personal income tax and push all taxation into the commercial activity realm.

            1) there are fewer corporations the indidivuals , so… the IRS has fewer entities to track and contact
            2) taxation policy really can drive corporate accountability.
            3) since all peer companies and business entities are equally impacted …( %-age) the competition is fair.
            4) Prices are rising as companies pay zero taxes .. so nothing to lose for the consumer except some bad spending habits.

          • Jeff

            That’s a horrible idea because “non-profits” and government entity employees avoid taxation and are further removed from ever feeling the effects of the real economy. Besides that, the way government picks and chooses which businesses get credits (alternative energy credits come to mind) we will have certain industries completely avoiding taxes. On top of that we only tax business profits…which means many businesses will just register zero profits if you drive taxes so high…why not just increase your own wage if you know there will be zero taxes on it while if you make it as profits you’ll have to pay massive taxes? I wonder if you’ve ever taken an economics or an accounting course.

          • JQP

            Jeff
            Simple efficiency says collect taxes from the corporations and accomplish three goals in one effort.

          • Jeff

            You’re suggesting that non-profits and government entities employees would have special privileges to not be taxed at all. If individuals do not feel the direct pain of taxes then it’s easier to raise them, especially if non-profits and government employees would never see taxes in general. Sorry, that’s not going to work, corporations don’t even pay taxes since the tax is only paid when capital gains (aka profits) or wages are paid out to individuals.

        • Joe

          Wow, you went further than the Supreme Courts “money = speech” argument straight to a “stealing money (from your very own investors who gave you such power…) = speech” conclusion, your philosophy is truly fascinating

  • kevins

    No.

  • Guest

    Related question: In a country where around 50% of people are either Catholic or Evangelical Christians, was it wise for the government to mandate that corporations directly sponser an activity that these groups consider unethical, or at least ethically questionable? The federal government pushed this issue and should not be surprised that the Supreme Court felt inclined to err on the side of religious freedom.

  • Naomi Williamson

    Corporations should not be required to provide health insurance for a number of reasons – not the least of which is that it now gives them power to control personal health care choices. Health insurance should be independent of employment. Medicare for All!