It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hobby Lobby Ruling and Corporate "Persons"

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

This sentence "An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the...". What is an "artificial person"? Could that mean like robots?




posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: mOjOm

This sentence "An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the...". What is an "artificial person"? Could that mean like robots?


I suppose depending on the context it could mean lots of things. But in this case it's the Definition of a "Corporation" so I'm guessing it's in reference to that.

It goes on in more detail as well which explains what that "artificial person" is too.



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

So, does that mean the Supreme Court opened the way for robots or AI to have constitutional rights?



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: mOjOm

So, does that mean the Supreme Court opened the way for robots or AI to have constitutional rights?


Seriously???? What do you think????

Was the hobby lobby case about robots and AI???

That's insulting to even ask me that. I've provided ample links and text explaining exactly what my point is and I've been more than polite and honest in answering questions that have been asked. Please take the time to research them and others if you need to before asking me anymore questions about this having to do with Robots. Thank you for your time.



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I never thought I would live to see corporations given the same rights as individuals either. Think about it for a while.



posted on Jul, 19 2014 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

Even worse is the fact that while we're having ours taken away they're getting them and then some extras we never even dreamed of having ourselves.

They are literally false gods we've created for the purpose of Wealth. Which isn't a bad thing, don't get me wrong, nothing wrong with making money or the idea of Corporations per se. But what we've allowed them to become is just insanity and it will bite us, all of us, in the ass even more than it already has.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

but they haven't been given the same rights! At least in this area they seem to have more.
The business have the constitutional protection there to safely allow it to say no to it's lord (the gov't) if they are demanding it to do something that they deem as immoral according to their religion..
in this case- include birth control coverage for their employees insurance.

Can the parents of teenage girls say no to that same mandate just as safely?

If their lord (employer) asks them to do something they deem to be immoral can they safely say no??



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen

The "Court" has taken away a woman's 14 Amendment rights, in the name of Hobby Lobby's religious freedom. The most disturbing aspect of the Hobby Lobby ruling is that it elevates the religious rights of business owners above the health interests and well being of their employees.



How does the Hobby Lobby ruling prevent a woman from obtaining a particular subset of medication? And Hobby Lobby are only refusing to cover a specific subset of that subset - they still provide contraceptives, just not medication that acts post-conception.

The ruling does nothing to prevent a woman from providing for herself, it just stops her demanding that someone else pays for it. That demand is far more odious and detrimental to society than the refusal to bow down to it. The entire concept of the mandate is odious, to be honest.

There's lots of things I want to do but won't, because I cannot financially afford to support that activity. I certainly don't demand that my employer pay for it. Ok, in this instance, I am my own employer, but the point still stands.

On a final note - if medications are no longer covered by insurance then the companies will have to price their product based on what the consumer can pay. Why are you supporting something that will force the artificial inflation of prices to unsustainable levels for individual consumers? Why are you supporting something that will leave healthcare as nothing more than a financial cost versus risk assessment by the insurance companies?

Do you genuinely hate people so much that you want to ensure that the majority suffers, that everyone is to be equally miserable? Why is that the world that you want to create?



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: mOjOm

I never thought I would live to see corporations given the same rights as individuals either. Think about it for a while.


They've had those rights since before you were born. It's a legal necessity, otherwise they could not enter into valid contracts.

However, corporate law looks at two things. The first is the rights and responsibilities of the corporate entity. The second if the rights and responsibilities of those who direct the corporate entity.

A corporation does not magically make a decision out of thin air. Its actions are the result of a conscious decision-making process by the people, the real live people, who direct that company. Those people can even be held legally responsible for their decisions. A corporation does not take an action unless it is decided upon by those directors.

The Hobby Lobby case is about whether those directors can be forced to make a decision about the running of their company that goes against their religious beliefs. It's not about the corporation itself having religious beliefs, it's about the people who control it having religious beliefs. Which they do.

I write this post in the full knowledge that it will be ignored, because it isn't convenient, it doesn't fit the narrative, it doesn't support whatever insipid liberal crusade some posters insist on fighting irrespective of the truth or common sense, etc.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

Curious Bob.

Does your wife agree with you?



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

You are simply wrong. When Hobby Lobby says "The owners claim that their personal religious beliefs would be offended if they have to provide certain forms of birth control coverage to employees." they mean to say "The owners claim that their corporate religious beliefs would be offended if they have to provide certain forms of birth control coverage to employees."

So, there really isn't a difference.

So, whats the next argument?



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob

I can see a slippery slope of abuse by allowing religion into corporate affairs at all. Just wait until Muslims start making our women wear veils on the job, so that their religion is not offended. There are other religions out there besides christians. Someday, we will thank the christians for opening that door. I thought the christian's kingdom was in heaven anyway.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: EvillerBob

I can see a slippery slope of abuse by allowing religion into corporate affairs at all. Just wait until Muslims start making our women wear veils on the job, so that their religion is not offended. There are other religions out there besides christians. Someday, we will thank the christians for opening that door. I thought the christian's kingdom was in heaven anyway.


Oh there already is.

The anti-gay people are all over this. They're saying this means they have religious freedom not to serve gays.

This is just wrong.

No one is making them use any of the contraceptives they don't agree with. They have the religious freedom not to use them.

This is fully oppressive of women. It is none if their business how a woman chooses to control her reproduction.

They are forcing their religious belief on women. And yeah, it is the same as forcing women to wear a veil.
edit on 20-7-2014 by Annee because: DAMN SPELL CHECK



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Really? by only removing four forms of birth control coverage? they still cover over 16 forms of birth control...it is not like there will be "birth control verification agents" at every establishment that sells birth control with a list of names of Hobby Lobby employees. they still have access to them (16 types), the company will just not pay for them (see below).
the only ones that they will not cover are -Plan B, Ella, and two types of IUDs. So how is this limiting access? really? all women? tell me when a lesbian female will need an IUD or any form of birth control... seriously. all other forms and pills ARE COVERED... get a grip and a clue. a few years ago, it was get the government out of my bed room, now everyone wants government to make their decisions. sad state our country is in.

cost of birth control comparison: money.usnews.com... and this is over 2 years old.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

In several laws and executive orders, when they talk about protections and definitions, they also lump "US corporations" as "US persons", especially if that corporation is based in the United States. It is general protections under the law.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: EvillerBob

Curious Bob.

Does your wife agree with you?



I've just asked her, and she says yes. I was actually expecting her to disagree, perhaps I'm becoming too persuasive in my old age.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: EvillerBob




How does the Hobby Lobby ruling prevent a woman from obtaining a particular subset of medication? And Hobby Lobby are only refusing to cover a specific subset of that subset - they still provide contraceptives, just not medication that acts post-conception.


Do you know what inequity is? Do you understand what rights the 14th Amendment protects? What does "equal protection under the law" mean to you?



The ruling does nothing to prevent a woman from providing for herself, it just stops her demanding that someone else pays for it. That demand is far more odious and detrimental to society than the refusal to bow down to it.


Sounds to me like you don't know how insurance works. We all pay for all kinds of things. For example, when I pay my monthly insurance premium, I may be paying for your erectile dysfunction medication. Why should I have pay for you to have sex? Why should I have to pay for a smokers emphysema treatment?

Every woman in the US who has a personal health insurance policy is guaranteed full access to ALL FDA contraceptive methods, at no extra cost, under the ACA, which is the law of the land. The contraception mandate is still in tact and still in effect.



The entire concept of the mandate is odious, to be honest.


Sorry, but governmental interest of public health and welfare trump your tender sensibilities in regards to women's procreative health issues. Fact is, this ruling has placed the burden of fulfilling this odious contraception mandate squarely on the shoulders of each and every tax payer, including you, including ALL Christians, and including Hobby Lobby and the Green family's personal taxes too.


edit on 20-7-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: EvillerBob

I can see a slippery slope of abuse by allowing religion into corporate affairs at all. Just wait until Muslims start making our women wear veils on the job, so that their religion is not offended. There are other religions out there besides christians. Someday, we will thank the christians for opening that door. I thought the christian's kingdom was in heaven anyway.


Religion has always been involved in corporate affairs to a greater or lesser extent, by virtue of the directors being influenced by their religious beliefs. If anything, it is less involved now than it has been in the past. Why do you think so many companies stop trading on Sundays? Because in many countries the law requires it? Where do you think that law came from?

However, it still requires a majority of the directors to be influenced. And if a majority of the directors wish to implement a certain policy (within acceptable limits, before anyone starts building strawmen about shooting staff who are late or some such nonsense that usually replaces thoughtful analysis when dealing with liberals) then leave them to it. If other people disagree, they can shop elsewhere. If employees disagree, they can look for a position with a different company. It's not up to you or me to tell people how they should run their business. The slippery slope of abuse you envisage is actually far less slippery and with a far less destructive destination than the alternative people seem to be promoting.

It's not about a right or wrong answer, it's about which evil you choose. I choose the evil of freedom, the evil of making my own choices, and the terrible, terrible evil of taking responsibility for my own actions.

The entire premise of these arguments is that companies have some greater moral duty (now legal duty I suppose) to pay for their employee's lifestyle. No, they don't, and they should never be placed in that position. The company pays them for the work that they do. They turn up, put in the hours, the company puts the money in the bank at the end of the month, end of obligation. If some of companies want to offer more benefits to attract employees, that's a choice for the individual company. It's up to the employee how they want to spend the money they earn, including handling their own healthcare. It is absolutely disgusting that people have somehow shoe-horned this into an expectation that the company exists to finance their improvident lifestyles.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

This is fully oppressive of women. It is none if their business how a woman chooses to control her reproduction.


Yes it is. You're asking them to pay for it. Stop asking them to pay for it and it stops being their business.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: EvillerBob

Curious Bob.

Does your wife agree with you?



I've just asked her, and she says yes. I was actually expecting her to disagree, perhaps I'm becoming too persuasive in my old age.


What exactly did she agree with?

Honest, I'm just curious. No nefarious reasons for asking.

And is she religious?
edit on 20-7-2014 by Annee because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join