quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Like I said .. in your mind.

Of course you were the guy that said they weren't going to take the case at all.. what was it you said.
Oh yeah. Something like if the courts decided to take it up it would overturn centuries of established precedent...
Feel free to correct me with your exact quote.....

You ran away after I proved your claims were lies. You had no response because there was no way to walk back the fact that every claim you had made were lies.
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4590526

As to the Court, I had incorrectly assumed that no appellate court would find that a corporation had a religion. Since 1 did the case now has to be ruled on by the Supreme Court. You still have the problem that there is a mountain of precedent saying corporations do not have religion and on the other side you have a couple of W judges saying otherwise. The Court can destroy its last shreds of credibility or it can find the obvious, corporations do not have religion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Regarding corporations getting to have religion...

Its quite disingenious to suggest thats what the case is about.

The court has already ruled that a religious institute can fire someone that doesn't reflect the lifestyle or values of the institution.
For example, there is no requirement for the catholic church to tolerate a teacher that preaches there is no god.

So the questions here are -
To what extent do these liberties apply to companies that are not religious in nature.
Do catholic teaching institutes get to not have contraception - obama has ruled they must.
What about companies such as hobby land - where the owners tithe, are closed on sundays.

Frankly, its going to depend on what level of interest the supremes are going to have as the burden of proof.

If it were an individual - the government would have to show a compelling interest to abridge religious liberty.
It isn't - but then the question becomes - well what if an individual had filed suit? Will the court be activist and use this as a vehicle to rule as if an individual had filed?

If not, there is still the question - what about due process rights?
The court has, over 100 years ruled that corporations do in fact have "rights', as the courts acknowledge that businesses are merely collections of individuals for the purpose of doing business.

Do individuals surrender their rights merely because they choose to engage in business?

This is just scratching the surface of the issues presented in these cases. So you to present this as hard and fast "corporations don't have rights"
in the first place is wrong -and secondly simplistic.

bullshit. Every shareholder of a corporation is equal before the law. So there is no way to say that Hobby Lobby can deny something based on religion without also saying that applies to every shareholder of every corporation which will inevitably result in unresolvable conflict. The shareholders of Hobby Lobby, and every other corp, can divest if they find that owning stock in a corporation that obeys the law burdens their conscience.

quote:

they get turned away from the emergency rooms that used to have to see them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
bullshit. Every shareholder of a corporation is equal before the law. So there is no way to say that Hobby Lobby can deny something based on religion without also saying that applies to every shareholder of every corporation which will inevitably result in unresolvable conflict. The shareholders of Hobby Lobby, and every other corp, can divest if they find that owning stock in a corporation that obeys the law burdens their conscience.

The shareholders of Hobby Lobby, and every other corp, can divest if they find that owning stock in a corporation that is exempt from a law burdens their conscience, too.
Wouldn't the majority opinion of shareholders be what counts, not each individual shareholder, individually?

So the majority can over rule someone's religious conscience? Is that really a position you want to take? That the law should favor the majority's religious beliefs over the minority?

The law? Um, I'm talking about shareholders, where the majority certainly does rule. Please try to follow.

But we're talking about the 1st amendment and there the majority certainly does not rule.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

they get turned away from the emergency rooms that used to have to see them.

Are you sure?
If that's true I just became an Obamacare supporter.
But... it's just too good to be true.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Regarding corporations getting to have religion...

Its quite disingenious to suggest thats what the case is about.

The court has already ruled that a religious institute can fire someone that doesn't reflect the lifestyle or values of the institution.
For example, there is no requirement for the catholic church to tolerate a teacher that preaches there is no god.

So the questions here are -
To what extent do these liberties apply to companies that are not religious in nature.
Do catholic teaching institutes get to not have contraception - obama has ruled they must.
What about companies such as hobby land - where the owners tithe, are closed on sundays.

Frankly, its going to depend on what level of interest the supremes are going to have as the burden of proof.

If it were an individual - the government would have to show a compelling interest to abridge religious liberty.
It isn't - but then the question becomes - well what if an individual had filed suit? Will the court be activist and use this as a vehicle to rule as if an individual had filed?

If not, there is still the question - what about due process rights?
The court has, over 100 years ruled that corporations do in fact have "rights', as the courts acknowledge that businesses are merely collections of individuals for the purpose of doing business.

Do individuals surrender their rights merely because they choose to engage in business?

This is just scratching the surface of the issues presented in these cases. So you to present this as hard and fast "corporations don't have rights"
in the first place is wrong -and secondly simplistic.

bullshit. Every shareholder of a corporation is equal before the law. So there is no way to say that Hobby Lobby can deny something based on religion without also saying that applies to every shareholder of every corporation which will inevitably result in unresolvable conflict. The shareholders of Hobby Lobby, and every other corp, can divest if they find that owning stock in a corporation that obeys the law burdens their conscience.

(Just for clarity....Hobby Lobby is entirely owned by one man....not a family, or even one additional shareholder).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Here's lucid thinking explaining why Ken is wrong:
http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/court-battles/191533-white-house-faces-tough-court-fight-on-obamacare-mandate

Better than my previous post on the matter. More or less the standard is clear - does the government have a compelling interest to abridge an enumerated right.

I don't think they do. However, more critically, is this the least invasive way to accomplish that compelling interest.

I think it is in the latter part that the test fails. If we stipulate that the government has a compelling interest in everyone having healthcare, it still doesn't mean this is the least invasive way to accomplish it.

I strongly suspect it is the most invasive way..

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
bullshit. Every shareholder of a corporation is equal before the law. So there is no way to say that Hobby Lobby can deny something based on religion without also saying that applies to every shareholder of every corporation which will inevitably result in unresolvable conflict. The shareholders of Hobby Lobby, and every other corp, can divest if they find that owning stock in a corporation that obeys the law burdens their conscience.

The shareholders of Hobby Lobby, and every other corp, can divest if they find that owning stock in a corporation that is exempt from a law burdens their conscience, too.
Wouldn't the majority opinion of shareholders be what counts, not each individual shareholder, individually?

So the majority can over rule someone's religious conscience? Is that really a position you want to take? That the law should favor the majority's religious beliefs over the minority?

The law? Um, I'm talking about shareholders, where the majority certainly does rule. Please try to follow.

But we're talking about the 1st amendment and there the majority certainly does not rule.

No, we're talking about a Corporation and it's shareholders, and how the 1st Amendment applies. As far as the shareholders control over the Corporation, it most certainly is about majority rule.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Simply factually not true.

Its the whole reason, for example, that there are different classes of stock. The rights of each shareholder differ according to the bylaws of the corporation, class of stock etc.

For example - in many companies 10% ownership entitles you to a seat on board of directors. 9% does not....

That's the bylaws of the corp. not the actual you know law. In the law every shareholder, of the same class of stock, is equal.

And except for, ya know, it is the actual law. This is why shareholders can bring suit when a corporation doesn't obey its by-laws.
You know. a LAW suit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Like I said .. in your mind.

Of course you were the guy that said they weren't going to take the case at all.. what was it you said.
Oh yeah. Something like if the courts decided to take it up it would overturn centuries of established precedent...
Feel free to correct me with your exact quote.....

You ran away after I proved your claims were lies. You had no response because there was no way to walk back the fact that every claim you had made were lies.
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4590526

As to the Court, I had incorrectly assumed that no appellate court would find that a corporation had a religion. Since 1 did the case now has to be ruled on by the Supreme Court. You still have the problem that there is a mountain of precedent saying corporations do not have religion and on the other side you have a couple of W judges saying otherwise. The Court can destroy its last shreds of credibility or it can find the obvious, corporations do not have religion.

Laughing - no I was more than adequately satisified that anyone with a shred of intelligence and an ounce of honesty could see the two plans are not the same. Therefore there was no reason to argue it further.

You feel free to persist in your idiocy that romney care and obamacare are the same..

As to the court - I am not certain how they will rule. Your argument is completed unrelated to the case at hand. But how they will rule - meh.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
bullshit. Every shareholder of a corporation is equal before the law. So there is no way to say that Hobby Lobby can deny something based on religion without also saying that applies to every shareholder of every corporation which will inevitably result in unresolvable conflict. The shareholders of Hobby Lobby, and every other corp, can divest if they find that owning stock in a corporation that obeys the law burdens their conscience.

The shareholders of Hobby Lobby, and every other corp, can divest if they find that owning stock in a corporation that is exempt from a law burdens their conscience, too.
Wouldn't the majority opinion of shareholders be what counts, not each individual shareholder, individually?

So the majority can over rule someone's religious conscience? Is that really a position you want to take? That the law should favor the majority's religious beliefs over the minority?

The law? Um, I'm talking about shareholders, where the majority certainly does rule. Please try to follow.

But we're talking about the 1st amendment and there the majority certainly does not rule.

No, we're talking about a Corporation and it's shareholders, and how the 1st Amendment applies. As far as the shareholders control over the Corporation, it most certainly is about majority rule.

So? The question is can a corporation be compelled to violate the religious beliefs of a shareholder. Whether that shareholder represents the majority is immaterial.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Good fucking God, man!

It's not about a shareholder. If the majority of shareholders decide the corporation is run as a Christian corporation, then that corporation is run as a Christian corporation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Good fucking God, man!

It's not about a shareholder. If the majority of shareholders decide the corporation is run as a Christian corporation, then that corporation is run as a Christian corporation.

So? Declaring that a corporation is Christian does not give it the right to break the law. Can I found a religion saying there is no minimum wage or workplace safety rules, found a corporation, declare that it follows my religion and then ignore OSHA?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Good fucking God, man!

It's not about a shareholder. If the majority of shareholders decide the corporation is run as a Christian corporation, then that corporation is run as a Christian corporation.

So? Declaring that a corporation is Christian does not give it the right to break the law. Can I found a religion saying there is no minimum wage or workplace safety rules, found a corporation, declare that it follows my religion and then ignore OSHA?

Hobby Lobby hasn't broken the law, and there is nothing in the Constitution about separation of Church and OSHA (nor is there anything in the Bible to lead anyone to believe that Jesus has any issues with legislated worker safety).

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Hobby Lobby is suing to be allowed to break the law. So can I found a religion etc. and then sue to allow my corporation to ignore OSHA? If you say Hobby Lobby is in the right what is to prevent me from doing the above? What is to prevent anyone from doing anything they want in the name of their "deeply held" religious beliefs?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

So we've all heard a few of the ways that the ACA is hurting americans:

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

If they are insured, but with a no co-pay no-service rule, Phydeaux? It's not something likely to be a problem for me these days, but that part of the fine print is written on the back of my insurance card.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Like I said .. in your mind.

Of course you were the guy that said they weren't going to take the case at all.. what was it you said.
Oh yeah. Something like if the courts decided to take it up it would overturn centuries of established precedent...
Feel free to correct me with your exact quote.....

You ran away after I proved your claims were lies. You had no response because there was no way to walk back the fact that every claim you had made were lies.
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4590526

As to the Court, I had incorrectly assumed that no appellate court would find that a corporation had a religion. Since 1 did the case now has to be ruled on by the Supreme Court. You still have the problem that there is a mountain of precedent saying corporations do not have religion and on the other side you have a couple of W judges saying otherwise. The Court can destroy its last shreds of credibility or it can find the obvious, corporations do not have religion.

Laughing - no I was more than adequately satisified that anyone with a shred of intelligence and an ounce of honesty could see the two plans are not the same. Therefore there was no reason to argue it further.

You feel free to persist in your idiocy that romney care and obamacare are the same..

As to the court - I am not certain how they will rule. Your argument is completed unrelated to the case at hand. But how they will rule - meh.

More lies as always.
You made a series of claims that the ACA was not based on Republican ideas. I walked you out on that claim until there was no where for you to run and then I proved every claim you had made was a lie and you ran away. You were hoping I'd drop it however I dislike your lying way too much to ever let you get away with it. Every time you pop up with more of your bullshit that link will always be there to show just how much you lie..

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Hobby Lobby is suing to be allowed to break the law. So can I found a religion etc. and then sue to allow my corporation to ignore OSHA? If you say Hobby Lobby is in the right what is to prevent me from doing the above? What is to prevent anyone from doing anything they want in the name of their "deeply held" religious beliefs?

Hobby Lobby is not suing to be allowed to break the law. That's fucking bullshit rhetoric. By that logic, Unions are allowed to break the law (without even having to sue), businesses are allowed to break the law for another year, etc.

If a law doesn't apply to a company, how is it "breaking the law?"