Supreme Court ruled in favor of hobby lobby

[Legend1104]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/...-got-it-right/

[jllundqu]

A terrible decision in my view. Hobby Lobby is a great company but SCOTUS extending 1st amendment protections (further) to corporations is a move in the wrong direction. Citizens united was also a terrible decision.

I'll say it again. We get our rights as INDIVIDUALS. Corporations are not INDIVIDUALS. I'll believe corporations are people when texas executes one.

[Legend1104]

Corporations are not entities they are groups of people that use their resources to generate profit, but those people do have rights. They have the ability to decide how they want to use their resources. When a group of individuals gets together they do not lose their rights just because they are in a group. If that were true then any time I join a group I lose my rights. So if a collection of individuals decides that they do not want to do something with their shared resources, then they should not have to do it.

[Natural Citizen]

Corporations are not entities they are groups of people that use their resources to generate profit, but those people do have rights. They have the ability to decide how they want to use their resources. When a group of individuals gets together they do not lose their rights just because they are in a group. If that were true then any time I join a group I lose my rights. So if a collection of individuals decides that they do not want to do something with their shared resources, then they should not have to do it.

Corporate personhood is a legal fiction.

The History of Corporate Personhood

[jllundqu]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Natural Citizen again.

[Peace&Freedom]

A terrible decision in my view. Hobby Lobby is a great company but SCOTUS extending 1st amendment protections (further) to corporations is a move in the wrong direction. Citizens united was also a terrible decision.

I'll say it again. We get our rights as INDIVIDUALS. Corporations are not INDIVIDUALS. I'll believe corporations are people when texas executes one.

True, corpartions are not individuals, and the court's 1st amendment application here was constitutionally slippery. But even more slippery was the notion that the federal government has no limits on its power to force corporations (which are state level entities) to do things. It's refreshing to see the court rule against further government coercion or intervention in a business's policies for a change.

Also, it's good to see statists getting blocked from circumventing the religious or conscientious objections to funding something, by demanding the religious body's business entity fund it. That's like saying, "we're not forcing parents to pay for this, we're billing the child, so what's the problem?"--knowing full well the parents would have to pay for it anyway in that case. The Catholic Church, through their funded organizations, would have had to pay for contraceptives (and eventually, abortions) had the ruling gone the other way.

[jllundqu]

Corporations are not entities they are groups of people that use their resources to generate profit, but those people do have rights. They have the ability to decide how they want to use their resources. When a group of individuals gets together they do not lose their rights just because they are in a group. If that were true then any time I join a group I lose my rights. So if a collection of individuals decides that they do not want to do something with their shared resources, then they should not have to do it.

Your logic is way off. What part of INDIVIDUAL is not clear? Of course you don't lose your rights AS AN INDIVIDUAL when you join a 'group' to use your word. But there is no freaking thing as GROUP RIGHTS. The owners of hobby lobby (or any other corporation) have their PERSONAL religious freedoms, but when you are a for-profit entity, i.e. in the business world, the bill of rights does not apply to your company, only to individuals. This decision made it much harder to battle corporations (which is half the problem)

[angelatc]

This is why I hate liberals [mod edit] so much. No SCOTUS decision ever said corporations were people but of course they NEVER let facts get in the way of their pro big government talking points. Several decisions specifically said they did not enjoy the same constitutional protections that individuals do. Something that the "brilliant" link NC posted somehow neglected to mention.


And lets not point out that the Hobby Lobby decision had nothing to do with corporate personhood - it had to do with a Clinton era Religious Rights act.

NC, you and yours make the fascists look appealing.

[angelatc]

The owners of hobby lobby (or any other corporation) have their PERSONAL religious freedoms, but when you are a for-profit entity, i.e. in the business world, the bill of rights does not apply to your company, only to individuals.

Nyah nyah nyah nyah nah - SCOTUS says you're wrong! Scotus says you're wrong!

(Scotus has never said there were group rights. What they did say is that you don't lose your individual rights just because you join a group. Go have a good cry in your organic salad....)

Go cry over at KOS. Let the real conservatives celebrate a win over you big government lovers.

[jllundqu]

This is why I hate liberals [mod edit] so much. No SCOTUS decision ever said corporations were people but of course they NEVER let facts get in the way of their pro big government talking points. Several decisions specifically said they did not enjoy the same constitutional protections that individuals do. Something that the "brilliant" link NC posted somehow neglected to mention.


And lets not point out that the Hobby Lobby decision had nothing to do with corporate personhood - it had to do with a Clinton era Religious Rights act.

NC, you and yours make the fascists look appealing.

Really? a neg rep and some namecalling to boot? Must be another freaking angelatc raid.

[jllundqu]

And Citizens United was the case that for all intents and purposes granted "Corporate Personhood"

ANd if you'd listened to ANY of the legal analysis on the HL case, you would learn that the contraception mandate is pointless compared to extending religious freedoms to corporations in general. What SCOTUS is doing is slowly affirming that the whole bill of rights applies to corporations as if they were, in fact, individuals. And if you weren't so blinded by your partisanship and religious douchebaggery, you'd see that.

[TonySutton]

From the decision, in reference to RFRA/1993:

It employed the familiar legal fiction of including corporations with in RFRA’s definition of “persons,” but the purpose of extending rights to corporations is to protect the rights of people associated with the corporation, including shareholders, officers, and employees.

(bold mine)

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...3-354_olp1.pdf

[jllundqu]

Nyah nyah nyah nyah nah - SCOTUS says you're wrong! Scotus says you're wrong!

(Scotus has never said there were group rights. What they did say is that you don't lose your individual rights just because you join a group. Go have a good cry in your organic salad....)

Go cry over at KOS. Let the real conservatives celebrate a win over you big government lovers.

Wow. Just wow. Real mature. You are a real piece of work.

[angelatc]

Oh look. A liberal making up positions that don't exist, then getting all mad because he's getting mocked for then debunking them. Go figure.

You are here debating on the side of big government. Crying openly because SCOTUS took away a tool for your use of government against private enterprise.

You deserve to get mocked, ridiculed and bullied so hard you can't sit down for a month.

[angelatc]

And Citizens United was the case that for all intents and purposes granted "Corporate Personhood"

Liar liar, pants on fire.

That's just a liberal talking point - you and yours can repeat it but that won't make it true.

[jllundqu]

Nyah nyah nyah nyah nah - SCOTUS says you're wrong! Scotus says you're wrong!

(Scotus has never said there were group rights. What they did say is that you don't lose your individual rights just because you join a group. Go have a good cry in your organic salad....)

Go cry over at KOS. Let the real conservatives celebrate a win over you big government lovers.

And what REALLY sucks is I can't neg rep this post:

You must spread some (neg) Reputation around before giving it to angelatc again.

[angelatc]

And what REALLY sucks is I can't neg rep this post:

Awww - always the victim. It's the liberal way, baby. We know....

[jllundqu]

Oh look. A liberal making up positions that don't exist, then getting all mad because he's getting mocked for then debunking them. Go figure.

You are here debating on the side of big government. Crying openly because SCOTUS took away a tool for your use of government against private enterprise.

You deserve to get mocked, ridiculed and bullied so hard you can't sit down for a month.

So even though I've been here for YEARS, WOrked and campaigned for Ron Paul in Arizona, Am a precinct committeeman for the GOP in my county, Am a member of the RBR club... I am a crying big government liberal fascist from the daly kos because we have differing views on what corporations are in the eyes of the court?

I'm confused... what the hell is wrong with you??

[Brian4Liberty]

So if a collection of individuals decides that they do not want to do something with their shared resources, then they should not have to do it.

Which brings up the question of how that "group" makes a decision. Who gets a say? All employees and shareholders? Just the corporate officials? Just the President or CEO? Just the owner? Is the decision made by full consensus? 2/3 majority? Bare majority? Plurality?

[angelatc]

And what REALLY sucks is I can't neg rep this post:

ANd really, if you weren't a liberal, you'd be more concerned that you can't actually REFUTE the post. "All intents and purposes.." - bull$#@!. Bull$#@!. Bull$#@!.

[Legend1104]

So if a farmer hires a worker to help on his farm then he must be forced to provide for birth control and other services he does not agree with? He is working for profit? What is the difference? Is it one of size because if tour principle changes because of the amount of individuals or the size of business then it is not a principle? What if it is a mom and pop store? Either way it is private property being used to make money by an owner. No one should have to use there property for something they don't want. Even when that property is shared by a group of people rather than just one.

[angelatc]

So even though I've been here for YEARS, WOrked and campaigned for Ron Paul in Arizona, Am a precinct committeeman for the GOP in my county, Am a member of the RBR club... I am a crying big government liberal fascist from the daly kos because we have differing views on what corporations are in the eyes of the court?

I'm confused... what the hell is wrong with you??

You're the one that's confused. You seem to think that using the government to control corporations is a perfectly acceptable use of government. YOu seem to think that SCOTUS said corporations were people. You seem to think that Citizens United "gave" rights to corporations. YOu seem upset that the government can't make HObby LObby buy "free" stuff for their employees.

Trust me, I am NOT the confused one here today. I am probably a little more giddy than normal because you and yours just got your big government asses handed to you.

[Brian4Liberty]

Doesn't government subsidize abortion providers? Does this mean that those who have religious objections to abortion shouldn't have to pay Federal taxes?

Even better, if someone's religion is opposed to dropping bombs on people, can they stop paying Federal taxes?

[jllundqu]

ANd really, if you weren't a liberal, you'd be more concerned that you can't actually REFUTE the post. "All intents and purposes.." - bull$#@!. Bull$#@!. Bull$#@!.

Well ok then. educate me with your extensive legal knowledge... after you can't and realize you are a failure as a human being, come back to the table and enjoy some civil debate.

[angelatc]

Which brings up the question of how that "group" makes a decision. Who gets a say? All employees and shareholders? Just the corporate officials? Just the President or CEO? Just the owner? Is the decision made by full consensus? 2/3 majority? Bare majority? Plurality?

Yes, they didn't split those hairs. They specifically mentioned, "closely held corporations" without drawing a specific line.

[angelatc]

Well ok then. educate me with your extensive legal knowledge... after you can't and realize you are a failure as a human being, come back to the table and enjoy some civil debate.

There is no such thing as a civil debate with a liberal. I've already thrown out several facts. Go ahead, debunk them...blue boy.

[luctor-et-emergo]

Even though I haven't read the case or followed it I understand the following:

Hobby Lobby was required to provide for something they don't agree with.
Hobby Lobby did not prevent anyone from acquiring things they don't agree with as they do not hold those powers.

Religious or not, how could this not be a win for liberty?

[LibertyEagle]

Your logic is way off. What part of INDIVIDUAL is not clear? Of course you don't lose your rights AS AN INDIVIDUAL when you join a 'group' to use your word. But there is no freaking thing as GROUP RIGHTS. The owners of hobby lobby (or any other corporation) have their PERSONAL religious freedoms, but when you are a for-profit entity, i.e. in the business world, the bill of rights does not apply to your company, only to individuals. This decision made it much harder to battle corporations (which is half the problem)

Individuals own the company.
The government was attempting to force the individuals to pay for people to kill their babies.
The Supreme Court says they cannot do that.

Calm down. The employees of Hobby Lobby can still murder their children if they want. It's just that the owners of Hobby Lobby aren't going to directly pay for it.

[jllundqu]

There is no such thing as a civil debate with a liberal. I've already thrown out several facts. Go ahead, debunk them...blue boy.

Ron Paul :

Paul rejects the notion that corporations are people, with collective rights. He says that only individuals have rights; people are individuals, not groups or companies.[110][111] "Corporations don't have rights per se, but the individual who happens to own a corporation or belong to a union does have rights, and these rights are not lost by merely acting through another organization."[109

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ns_of_Ron_Paul

[specsaregood]

Even though I haven't read the case or followed it I understand the following:

Hobby Lobby was required to provide for something they don't agree with.
Hobby Lobby did not prevent anyone from acquiring things they don't agree with as they do not hold those powers.

Religious or not, how could this not be a win for liberty?

It really is that simple. and this is a win for liberty.