Hobby Lobby contraception case going to Supreme Court

[Gasser64]

The fact you're attempting to frame this debate as something other than law, when this discussion entirely revolves around law itself is disingenuous and my opinion comes off petty and desperate.

Thats his standard MO

The fact that he thinks hes fooling somebody by doing it is pretty funny tho

[YALE]

The main problem is that people have confused an employment perk with a basic human right.

[564826]

its

Darn autocorrect

[CJ]

The main problem is that people have confused an employment perk with a basic human right.

That is exactly right. And that's the vehicle this corrupt government is using to install tyranny.

[racrguy]

It is by definition a person by law. The fact you're attempting to frame this debate as something other than law, when this discussion entirely revolves around law itself is disingenuous and my opinion comes off petty and desperate.

I deleted what I typed here earlier so that I could change it up a bit.

Do you think that corporations should be legally identified as persons, or businesses?

[CJ]

I deleted what I typed here earlier so that I could change it up a bit.

Do you think that corporations should be legally identified as persons, or businesses?

It's not what I think, it's what the law says. And the law says a corporation is a person. And bestowed upon corporations are the same rights. Which is why this ruling is not dangerous or some major problem we need to worry about. That's the way it has always been, and always interpreted. Obama attempted to strip the already established right away and got his hand slapped.

[Tx Redneck]

It doesn't affect:

• Most birth control pills

• Condoms

• Sponges

• Sterilization

It does affect:

• Plan B "morning-after pill"

• Ella "morning-after pill"

• Hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs)

[dee]

The main problem is that people have confused an employment perk with a basic human right.

Agreed.

A corporation is no different than a regular business owner imo. You either have one person running the show or a board panel that makes a decision as one.

[YALE]

Agreed.

A corporation is no different than a regular business owner imo. You either have one person running the show or a board panel that makes a decision as one.

That's not what I said, and I think there is a difference between a corporation and a person, but the law says there isn't, and in some cases, they have more protections than an individual. If people don't like that, they should work on getting the law changed.

[dee]

That's not what I said, and I think there is a difference between a corporation and a person, but the law says there isn't, and in some cases, they have more protections than an individual. If people don't like that, they should work on getting the law changed.

When do they have more protection? Are you referring to when a board member isn't held accountable for supposed "unknown" actions?

[YALE]

When do they have more protection? Are you referring to when a board member isn't held accountable for supposed "unknown" actions?

Because they aren't a person, they aren't subject to law the same way. Basically, aside from fining a corporation, all you can do is pull its charter. It still doesn't change my opinion that insurance isn't a basic human right. Providing your poor with basic health care is a good idea, but that isn't always a reasonable idea. Also, giving them insurance and calling it health care is moronic. They aren't the same.

[Baron Von Crowder]

Composed of people. That doesn't make it a person. In a perfect world, I would agree with you that the government needs to stay out of businesses.. ahem, business. When they are buying every politician in the country that means business needs to be redefined and looked at in a different manner. Or perhaps I'm looking at the wrong problem here, which is entirely possible. At any rate, all this does is set up one more precedent where the people of this country lose, and corporations and politicians win. I'm not going to claim to have all the answers, but IMO this is tantamount to religious discrimination and sets a VERY dangerous precedent.

yeah, like Chick fil A being closed on Sundays. I cant believe the government hasnt stepped in on that already. I have a right to eat wonderful chicken and waffle fries on Sundays!

[racrguy]

It's not what I think, it's what the law says. And the law says a corporation is a person.

I didn't ask you that. I asked you if you thought a corporation should be a person or not. Far too many people are missing the forest through the trees, and instead of arguing that corporations should/should not be people, they're arguing the minutia of the situation.

And bestowed upon corporations are the same rights.

Except they've got more.

Which is why this ruling is not dangerous or some major problem we need to worry about.

What's to stop closely held corporations from saying they don't like vaccines, or blood transfusions, etc due to their firmly held religious beliefs? What defines a closely held corporation, and what's to stop them from redefining it to mean 10,000 or 100k shareholders being closely held?

That's the way it has always been, and always interpreted.

Corporations have always been legally regarded as people?

[Baron Von Crowder]

I didn't ask you that. I asked you if you thought a corporation should be a person or not. Far too many people are missing the forest through the trees, and instead of arguing that corporations should/should not be people, they're arguing the minutia of the situation.



Except they've got more.



What's to stop closely held corporations from saying they don't like vaccines, or blood transfusions, etc due to their firmly held religious beliefs? What defines a closely held corporation, and what's to stop them from redefining it to mean 10,000 or 100k shareholders being closely held?



Corporations have always been legally regarded as people?

I find it revolting that you are more focused on the fact that a corporation has the right to do business using religious guidelines as they choose, and completely ignoring that the government has grossly overstepped their boundaries by making and passing the ACA.

[dee]

Because they aren't a person, they aren't subject to law the same way. Basically, aside from fining a corporation, all you can do is pull its charter. It still doesn't change my opinion that insurance isn't a basic human right. Providing your poor with basic health care is a good idea, but that isn't always a reasonable idea. Also, giving them insurance and calling it health care is moronic. They aren't the same.

How are they protected from the law? Plausible deniability? I haven't looked into corporations much but thought the board members could be held responsible just as a individual business owner could.