Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too?

Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

joether -> Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/26/2013 10:56:19 AM)
The US Supreme Court is taking up a critical case. The question before the court is: does a company have a religious right to decide how it behaves with laws they operate within? This silly notion that 'corporations are people too' come from the Citizen's United case; one of the dumbest ruling for the Court in a while. That case and this one are BOTH politically motivated by the conservative justices. Its an 'open and shut' case in my opinion. The conservatives on the bench will try to find some way to fuck up America for companies to have a religious freedom. An the last of the three branches of the US Federal system will be totally undermined. Since if they rule companies have religious freedoms, its safe to ask (an further down the stupid train): "Can companies vote"?

EdBowie -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/26/2013 11:06:25 AM)
Since there was no such ruling in Citizens United, is it OK to assume that the rest of your post is simply reductio ad absurdum? quote: ORIGINAL: joether The US Supreme Court is taking up a critical case. The question before the court is: does a company have a religious right to decide how it behaves with laws they operate within? This silly notion that 'corporations are people too' come from the Citizen's United case; one of the dumbest ruling for the Court in a while. That case and this one are BOTH politically motivated by the conservative justices. Its an 'open and shut' case in my opinion. The conservatives on the bench will try to find some way to fuck up America for companies to have a religious freedom. An the last of the three branches of the US Federal system will be totally undermined. Since if they rule companies have religious freedoms, its safe to ask (an further down the stupid train): "Can companies vote"?

joether -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/26/2013 11:23:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie Since there was no such ruling in Citizens United, is it OK to assume that the rest of your post is simply reductio ad absurdum? quote: ORIGINAL: joether The US Supreme Court is taking up a critical case. The question before the court is: does a company have a religious right to decide how it behaves with laws they operate within? This silly notion that 'corporations are people too' come from the Citizen's United case; one of the dumbest ruling for the Court in a while. That case and this one are BOTH politically motivated by the conservative justices. Its an 'open and shut' case in my opinion. The conservatives on the bench will try to find some way to fuck up America for companies to have a religious freedom. An the last of the three branches of the US Federal system will be totally undermined. Since if they rule companies have religious freedoms, its safe to ask (an further down the stupid train): "Can companies vote"? By all means, explain the Citizen's United Case in full. No cut/paste, no silly links, just in your own words. The part of 'Corporations are people too' comes from a guy who actually tried to run for President.

EdBowie -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/26/2013 11:50:51 AM)
The legal notion of corporate personhood existed long before the Citizen's United case. Had you bothered to even read the ruling, instead of parroting propaganda, you would notice that the Justices cite that precedent... which goes back as far as 1819 in Trustees of Dartmouth v. Woodward. The claim that corporate personhood was created in the Citizen's United ruling is patently false, which is why you can't back up your assertion with any cites, and are reduced to the tired old internet fallacy of demanding proof of non-existence. quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie Since there was no such ruling in Citizens United, is it OK to assume that the rest of your post is simply reductio ad absurdum? quote: ORIGINAL: joether The US Supreme Court is taking up a critical case. The question before the court is: does a company have a religious right to decide how it behaves with laws they operate within? This silly notion that 'corporations are people too' come from the Citizen's United case; one of the dumbest ruling for the Court in a while. That case and this one are BOTH politically motivated by the conservative justices. Its an 'open and shut' case in my opinion. The conservatives on the bench will try to find some way to fuck up America for companies to have a religious freedom. An the last of the three branches of the US Federal system will be totally undermined. Since if they rule companies have religious freedoms, its safe to ask (an further down the stupid train): "Can companies vote"? By all means, explain the Citizen's United Case in full. No cut/paste, no silly links, just in your own words. The part of 'Corporations are people too' comes from a guy who actually tried to run for President.

popeye1250 -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/26/2013 12:07:46 PM)
This is fucked. I think it's way past time that we have a Constitutional Convention in this country. And by that I mean "by the people" with no participation or feedback by the executive, legislative or judicial branches of our govt. Just pick 10 people at random from each state. Corporations are NOT "people." I wonder where President Snow (job) stands on this? Certainly with General Electric!

DomKen -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/26/2013 12:11:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie Since there was no such ruling in Citizens United, is it OK to assume that the rest of your post is simply reductio ad absurdum? Actually the reason this is in front of SCOTUS is because a federal appellate judge used the CU case as justification to give corporations freedom of religion which is just patently absurd but now we will have the spectacle of Scalia et al declaring that corporations have religious beliefs.

EdBowie -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/26/2013 12:19:06 PM)
Used what the CU case actually said... that just because 2 or more people have formed a group, doesn't automatically take away their individual rights... like voting. And yes, it will be an interesting case, I suspect. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie Since there was no such ruling in Citizens United, is it OK to assume that the rest of your post is simply reductio ad absurdum? Actually the reason this is in front of SCOTUS is because a federal appellate judge used the CU case as justification to give corporations freedom of religion which is just patently absurd but now we will have the spectacle of Scalia et al declaring that corporations have religious beliefs.

DomKen -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/26/2013 12:29:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie Used what the CU case actually said... that just because 2 or more people have formed a group, doesn't automatically take away their individual rights... like voting. And yes, it will be an interesting case, I suspect. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie Since there was no such ruling in Citizens United, is it OK to assume that the rest of your post is simply reductio ad absurdum? Actually the reason this is in front of SCOTUS is because a federal appellate judge used the CU case as justification to give corporations freedom of religion which is just patently absurd but now we will have the spectacle of Scalia et al declaring that corporations have religious beliefs. The problem with that is that corporations exist to shield the shareholders from personal responsibility for the operation of the company. They give up something to get that protection. What they are supposed to give up is direct control of the corporation and with that goes any religious liberty assertion or are you really going to argue that any corporation with even 1 Christian Scientist shareholder cannot offer health insurance at all?

ThatDaveGuy69 -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/26/2013 12:37:59 PM)
And isn't that where this is really headed? They already carve out religious exemptions for so many laws as it is. If the Supremes rule that corporations have religious freedom then that will allow them to get in on the exemption bandwagon or at the very least denying certain types of health care coverage for women. I can see this being taken to absurd levels, such as claiming a corporation is really a religious institution and is therefore deserving of tax-exempt status. If you think that is too ridiculous, note that the NLF is, in fact, a tax-exempt corporation, although not on religious grounds.

EdBowie -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/26/2013 12:58:26 PM)
That's a strawman. I'm not going to waste time arguing with trolls. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen "...are you really going to argue that any corporation with even 1 Christian Scientist shareholder cannot offer health insurance at all? "

EdBowie -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/26/2013 1:06:00 PM)
Interesting that no one brings up last year's Perich case that opened this door... where the Court ruled that someone hired by a church school as a 'religious employee' could be fired over church dogma. And I'm guessing that some of those pushing this agenda would love to be able to discriminate and claim legal protection for it. If it goes their way, I wonder how long before the Curse of Ham becomes popular in certain circles again. quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69 And isn't that where this is really headed? They already carve out religious exemptions for so many laws as it is. If the Supremes rule that corporations have religious freedom then that will allow them to get in on the exemption bandwagon or at the very least denying certain types of health care coverage for women. I can see this being taken to absurd levels, such as claiming a corporation is really a religious institution and is therefore deserving of tax-exempt status. If you think that is too ridiculous, note that the NLF is, in fact, a tax-exempt corporation, although not on religious grounds.

DomKen -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/26/2013 2:27:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie That's a strawman. I'm not going to waste time arguing with trolls. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen "...are you really going to argue that any corporation with even 1 Christian Scientist shareholder cannot offer health insurance at all? " Bullshit. If you are arguing that a corporation has a religious belief that is protected by the 1st amendment due to the religious belief of the corporations shareholders then you cannot trample on even 1 shareholders beliefs.

RottenJohnny -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/26/2013 4:02:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69 ...or at the very least denying certain types of health care coverage for women. Regardless of the religious bend, why should a corporation have to supply a woman with "certain types of health care coverage" if they don't want to?

EdBowie -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/26/2013 4:05:24 PM)
I haven't posted anything that a sane person could read as my arguing what you just said. You are making it up completely in order to troll. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie That's a strawman. I'm not going to waste time arguing with trolls. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen "...are you really going to argue that any corporation with even 1 Christian Scientist shareholder cannot offer health insurance at all? " Bullshit. If you are arguing that a corporation has a religious belief that is protected by the 1st amendment due to the religious belief of the corporations shareholders then you cannot trample on even 1 shareholders beliefs.

Phydeaux -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/26/2013 6:16:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie That's a strawman. I'm not going to waste time arguing with trolls. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen "...are you really going to argue that any corporation with even 1 Christian Scientist shareholder cannot offer health insurance at all? " Bullshit. If you are arguing that a corporation has a religious belief that is protected by the 1st amendment due to the religious belief of the corporations shareholders then you cannot trample on even 1 shareholders beliefs. Bullshit back at you. Since I"m more inclined to tangle with trolls... Any person can purchase stock in publicly traded companies. That does not mean that person's point of view reflects the coorporate strategy or values. Much less a privately held corporation. Suppose I were an individual. I want to hire people. But, being catholic, I don't want to offer insurance that offers birth control subsidies. Now, are you really saying that because I am catholic, I am not afforded the ability to enjoy the same protections and legal remedies that other people are? Ie., the ability to form corporations and protect assets? Prima facie fails on a X amendment basis.

MsMJAY -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/26/2013 6:41:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69 ...or at the very least denying certain types of health care coverage for women. Regardless of the religious bend, why should a corporation have to supply a woman with "certain types of health care coverage" if they don't want to? Why should a corporation be able to tell an insurance provider to ignore the law that everyone else has to follow? Why should the corporation be allowed discriminate against women solely based on the corporation's religious beliefs? For that matter why should "a separate entity, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of the law" (text book definition of a corporation) even be allowed to have religious beliefs?

DomKen -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/26/2013 7:26:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie I haven't posted anything that a sane person could read as my arguing what you just said. You are making it up completely in order to troll. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie That's a strawman. I'm not going to waste time arguing with trolls. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen "...are you really going to argue that any corporation with even 1 Christian Scientist shareholder cannot offer health insurance at all? " Bullshit. If you are arguing that a corporation has a religious belief that is protected by the 1st amendment due to the religious belief of the corporations shareholders then you cannot trample on even 1 shareholders beliefs. Someone hacked your account you should look into that. quote: Used what the CU case actually said... that just because 2 or more people have formed a group, doesn't automatically take away their individual rights... like voting. And yes, it will be an interesting case, I suspect.

DomKen -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/26/2013 7:33:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Bullshit back at you. Since I"m more inclined to tangle with trolls... Any person can purchase stock in publicly traded companies. That does not mean that person's point of view reflects the coorporate strategy or values. Much less a privately held corporation. Suppose I were an individual. I want to hire people. But, being catholic, I don't want to offer insurance that offers birth control subsidies. Now, are you really saying that because I am catholic, I am not afforded the ability to enjoy the same protections and legal remedies that other people are? Ie., the ability to form corporations and protect assets? Prima facie fails on a X amendment basis. Your religious liberty ends at your nose. You as a business owner cannot dictate how money or benefits you provide to your employees are used. A catholic business owner can no more dictate that their health insurance policy not cover contraception than you can dictate that the money you pay your employees cannot be used to purchase condoms. The idea that a corporation, which no matter what you think is not special if it is private or public, could do so is patently absurd. And the fact is that if the Court finds that a shareholders religious beliefs carry over to the corporation then a single Christian Scientist owner a single share of a corporation could force it to not provide health insurance at all and that is clearly not what the laws establishing corporations intends.

EdBowie -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/26/2013 7:57:20 PM)
As I said, no rational person could take my factual citing of what was in the ruling, and honestly think it was advocacy of the unrelated bizzaro world crap that you fabricated and claimed I had posted. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Someone hacked your account you should look into that. quote: Used what the CU case actually said... that just because 2 or more people have formed a group, doesn't automatically take away their individual rights... like voting. And yes, it will be an interesting case, I suspect.

RottenJohnny -> RE: Jesus Christ, what's next, they can vote too? (11/26/2013 8:05:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MsMJAY Why should a corporation be able to tell an insurance provider to ignore the law that everyone else has to follow? I'm not suggesting that a corporation should be allowed to "tell" an insurance provider anything. I'm a supporter of an a-la-cart insurance system. Companies should have the option to tailor the insurance package they offer to employees however they want it...or nothing at all if they choose. If an employee doesn't like the package they should be able to purchase any kind of supplemental coverage they want. quote: Why should the corporation be allowed discriminate against women solely based on the corporation's religious beliefs? Religion or not, a corporation should be allowed to offer whatever benefits to it's employees it wants to...or none. quote: For that matter why should "a separate entity, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of the law" (text book definition of a corporation) even be allowed to have religious beliefs? I'm not suggesting they should be. In general, I find the whole concept of treating corporations as people with the right to religious beliefs completely ludicrous...except perhaps if the business itself is a religious organization like the Catholic or Mormon churches.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875