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: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Actually this is about forcing a company to support abortion.




posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
This is 100% about forcing religious belief.


Exactly, and I don't think you have any greater right to force your religious belief on them, than they have to force it on you.

Because your belief is religious. It might not be found in any specific holy book or linked to any specific church, but it's still an essentially moral argument, just like theirs. Except... their belief isn't designed to deny you the right to exercise your beliefs. Your belief is designed to deny them the right to exercise their belief.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Why should I Care About The Supreme Court And Hobby Lobby? — ‘The Why’ Read more at americanlivewire.com...


What the Supreme Court has done is essentially given for-profit companies the ability to force the religious beliefs of their stockholders on employees who might have different (if any) beliefs. (If you’re now thinking: “whatever” then keep reading. Your opinionated penman was thinking the same thing.) Read more at americanlivewire.com...



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Annee

Actually this is about forcing a company to support abortion.


It most certainly is not. Abortion was never an issue here. The US does not subsidize abortion and abortion was NEVER part of the ACA.

ALL these contraception methods, mandated in the ACA prevent pregnancy. No pregnancy = no abortion.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Annee

Actually this is about forcing a company to support abortion.


It most certainly is not. Abortion was never an issue here. The US does not subsidize abortion and abortion was NEVER part of the ACA.

ALL these contraception methods, mandated in the ACA prevent pregnancy. No pregnancy = no abortion.






Abstinence = no pregnancy.




posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: thesaneone

Abstinence is great, if a girl gets that choice. I personally know 5 girls who were raped at 10-13 yrs old by family relatives. They are grown now and won't be silent anymore.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: thesaneone




Abstinence = no pregnancy.


Frankly, I don't care how one gets to "no pregnancy", none of my business. But, the fact of the matter is "no pregnancy" equals "no abortion" every time! And this issue was about "no pregnancy" from the get go. It was never about abortion.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: thesaneone

Abstinence is great, if a girl gets that choice. I personally know 5 girls who were raped at 10-13 yrs old by family relatives. They are grown now and won't be silent anymore.


Abstinence. You know, hold an aspirin between your knees. "They" did seriously tell us girls that in my day.

All ya gotta do is check the statistics on the success of abstinence among young women (and the male who got her pregnant). Fail!


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



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I appreciate you making clear the distinction and taking the time to point it out. Any distrinction that was intended during the early years of this duet of people has become so blurred, as you put it, by design or not, as to be non extistant.

I believe, the concept was flawed from the begining, around the time of the civil war. The idea that corporations have 'a life of their own' and 'rights of their own' is a flawed premise. initially corporations where 'chartered for a specific time for a specific purpose'. This was very deliberately done in order to hinder accumlated and inherited wealth, something that our forebearers and the framers of the constitution were very afraid of taking hold in this country.

We can see all around us the abuse of corporate power and it's imorality. Corporations have no God but the accululation of weath, they are completely amoral and have only one, singular goal, clearly and legally stated as "shareholder" value. That is the only higher or righteous goal they serve and in so doing, they are destroying mankind and life. The Borg are here.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shaiker
Hobby Lobby is not a corporation and is privately owned. In my view if im forced against my will to provide a service that violates my religious beliefs i would rather close my doors and move to a country with religious freedom.


Well this simply isn't even the case with the hobby lobby.

Hobby lobby didn't want to pay for birth control, and then turned around and invested million in the birth control companies.

The owners of hobby lobby don't give a damn about religion, only profit. This entire thing has nothing to do with being "against" contraceptives -- they just didn't want to dole them out, they want people to buy them, since they are share holders.

This # is unethical as it can get.

P.S.

This is why the "religion" argument is not valid. Their entire case was based on their investment into the production of said contraceptives.

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



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: Annee

Not the point. I can go to a free clinic. But, that is not the point.

This company already offered insurance.

It's about forcing a religious belief.


As opposed to forcing an unreligious belief?

Still force, except HL are enforcing theirs at the point of a metaphorical gun. HL's position allows both parties to get what they want. Your position only allows one party to get what they want. I still fail to see how that's better.

And the free access to the clinic is entirely part of the point. HL is not stopping anyone from using contraception. They're not doing blood tests and firing people who use it outside of work. The only issue at stake it who pays for it. If it's available free from a clinic, then there is no issue, surely? Except "who pays for the clinic", obviously.


Or rather where the clinic gets it's contraceptives.

Which are from hobby lobby via investment. [Yes, you heard right.]



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Laykilla

This is why the "religion" argument is not valid. Their entire case was based on their investment into the production of said contraceptives.

Soooooooooo


I think both are valid.

If only it's because it opened the doors for other companies to claim religious freedom.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
All ya gotta do is check the statistics on the success of abstinence among young women (and the male who got her pregnant). Fail!


Right!
And junk food is statistically impossible to resist. The obese should accept zero responsibility for their weight, and have all resulting medical expenses covered by their neighbors and co-workers. Will-power and accountability have no relevance to public policy.

Can you see the sarcasm in what I just wrote? Can you see the flaw in your line of thinking?

I probably should not mention this little observation, lest this derail into a sexism debate, but your above quote makes it sound as though the reason abstinence 'fails' is because some man comes along and tricks/seduces/rapes every woman who practice abstinence.


To the topic at hand -- in my opinion the Hobby Lobby case boils down to individual freedom. Corporation or not, every organization is comprised of people. The people at the top make policy decisions, and they are free to do whatever they please so long as they do not violate a person's constitutional rights. There is no amendment guaranteeing the right to ANY health care, much less for elective treatments like lap-bands and contraceptives.

All SCOTUS did with this ruling (which was dangerously close to going the wrong way) was uphold the US constitution. The federal government has no say in what compensation or benefits a company is to provide. The market determines such things. No one is forced to work for any company, and no one is forced to shop there either.

If you think Hobby Lobby is being stingy, controlling, or whatever, then by all means organize a boycott. If enough consumers agree and join you, then your message will be heard. Be aware that in today's overbearing society, boycotts can do more to hurt the cause than help it. The Chik-Fil-A protests are a perfect example of diverse, freedom-loving individuals uniting in opposition to a dictatorial, derisive minority.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist




All SCOTUS did with this ruling (which was dangerously close to going the wrong way) was uphold the US constitution. The federal government has no say in what compensation or benefits a company is to provide.


Wrong. The SCOTUS ruling was not based on the US Constitution. It was based on the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, and the SCOTUS ruling, and subsequent injunction, does, in fact, violate the 1st and 14th Amendments.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist

originally posted by: Annee
All ya gotta do is check the statistics on the success of abstinence among young women (and the male who got her pregnant). Fail!


Right!
And junk food is statistically impossible to resist. The obese should accept zero responsibility for their weight, and have all resulting medical expenses covered by their neighbors and co-workers. Will-power and accountability have no relevance to public policy.



Let's all rant and be self-righteous as young women and the sperm donors continue to become pregnant from "believing" in abstinence.

Statistics prove how affective the abstinence programs have been. People are human. They don't have an on/off switch.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 08:58 PM
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.


Corporations were given the same rights as individuals LONG before you were born. Read mOjOm's posts on the 1st page - he gives a bit of the history of corporate law. As i recall, corporate personhood was established sometime in the 1770's. I don't agree with it either - and especially, I do not agree with trashing the few restrictions that temper corporate power. It's already too big.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Thank you so much for your informed, informative, reasonable and thoughtful post. I'm always surprised at people's ignorance - and unwillingness to be educated. Please - keep thinking and posting.

F&S&



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: windword
Excellent post. Hobby lobby get's to control the religious freedom of it's employees. Now that's religious freedom in a very unfree kind of way.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: fripw
a reply to: windword
Excellent post. Hobby lobby get's to control the religious freedom of it's employees. Now that's religious freedom in a very unfree kind of way.



Are you or anyone else being forced to work for hobby lobby?



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: thesaneone
Actually no one "supports" abortion. Ok there maybe a handful of Satan worshipers somewhere who support abortion.

But this a very very very small group of people. Most of the others that you say support abortion actually don't. They only think it is the woman's right to choose and none of your business or your religions business.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join