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: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: fripw

Um.. If you have an abortion then wouldn't you support abortion?




posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 10:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: fripw

Um.. If you have an abortion then wouldn't you support abortion?


It's a subtle difference but one that is still important.

Pro-Choice means you support having all options on the table to choose from.

Pro Abortion means you support having abortions as the answer while maybe not even considering the other options.

The term Pro Abortion is a term used by those who like to try and label people who are pro choice as "Baby Killers who love having abortions!!!" or some BS like that.

Nobody is sitting around saying, "Woo Hoo, let's go get some abortions. Yay!!" That's just stupid. An abortion is a serious matter and one not to be taken lightly and it's insulting to suggest any woman is thrilled about having one. It's usually something that is seen as a last resort not a first one.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Really?

p.washingtontimes.com...



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: windword
That is your only retort? Trying to nail me on a legal technicality? I find that pretty amusing, and very telling. If I needed to go into legal detail to prove my point, I would have. Here on ATS, things are much less droll if we translate the legalese into something more palatable.

Of course they used the RFRA on the first attempt in court. The RFRA is nothing but an unnecessary reinforcement of the 1st amendment, and if that didn't get Hobby Lobby a win in court then they would have appealed and used the 1st amendment on the next go-around.

Care to elaborate on how the ruling violates the 1st or 14th amendment?



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 11:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: mOjOm

Really?

p.washingtontimes.com...


What's your point??? Try using words next time. I don't read minds.

Is there something about the coat hanger symbol that you want me to see??? Reminds me of cross worn by Christians actually. So what??? Is having a tortured and dying man nailed to cross supposed to be less dramatic than a coat hanger??? They're both morbid symbols, ya I get it. They're supposed to be aren't they??? You know, as a reminder.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: fripw

Um.. If you have an abortion then wouldn't you support abortion?


It's Right of Choice. Supporting every woman's right to decide for herself.

There are many who support Right of Choice, but don't support abortion itself.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

If it is really about choice like you say then choose to take your cash and buy any birth control that you choose and let the company choose what perks it wants to give to their employees.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 11:26 PM
link   
This is kinda interesting. From another topic here on ATS which isn't about Hobby Lobby I noticed something interesting.

As Christians do we have to obey, without question

Basically saying that in Romans it talks about obeying authority as good christians because that is what God wants.



This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.


Funny how they always forget the rules they don't agree with. It would seem to me that this should also apply in this case shouldn't it???

Cherry Picking the rules as they see fit. Typical Christian Ethics.



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 11:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: EvillerBob

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.


They are a corporation that offers a medical insurance plan.

They are not a church.

Belief? Stay out of my vagina is not a belief.




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



posted on Jul, 20 2014 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist





Care to elaborate on how the ruling violates the 1st or 14th amendment?


Have you tried reading my posts in this thread? I mean other than the one addressed to you?

My Posts



if that didn't get Hobby Lobby a win in court then they would have appealed and used the 1st amendment on the next go-around.


There are no appeals after the Supreme Court.


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



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
Cherry Picking the rules as they see fit. Typical Christian Ethics.


No, they're just being advised to choose their battles. If the law of the land said they had to curse Jesus and swear allegiance to Satan, I'm fairly certain they wouldn't be expected to comply.

The list of things in that list is not contentious and do not go against any fundamental principle in Christianity. This current matter goes to something that is very much an issue within Christianity. No cherry picking involved.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 03:18 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

It also says that:
slaves should obey their masters (employers would be the modern equivilent)
children should obey their parents
and wives should obey their husbands.

One of the kings of Isreal had some guest he was entertaining and he wanted to show off his wife so he summoned her to him. The wife was in another area of the palace busy entertaining their female guests since that was the way things were done back then I guess- segregation and separation. She ignored the kings summons.. The king became irked enough to not only banish her from the kingdom but to also make a new law that every wife in the kingdom was to be in obedience to their husband.
I think it's acceptable to make judgements as to what the word "obey" should mean. But I also think that the meaning if it should be applied to all the categories..
For instance if a business doesn't have to obey any laws the gov't creates because it goes against their religious principles then likewise their employees should also not have to obey rules their employers make that confllicts with their moral principals. And the same goes for the wives and children.

I aso think that the true test would be weather or not the moral convictions are strong enough for the person to determine that it's worth the repercussions that disobedience brings about..Hobby Lobby managed to avoid the laws and the repercussion associated with it.
So well, their employers should also have the same ability to protect their moral convictions without repercussions!



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 03:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: EvillerBob

No, they're just being advised to choose their battles. If the law of the land said they had to curse Jesus and swear allegiance to Satan, I'm fairly certain they wouldn't be expected to comply.

The list of things in that list is not contentious and do not go against any fundamental principle in Christianity. This current matter goes to something that is very much an issue within Christianity. No cherry picking involved.


That's your interpretation but obviously not the only one. Nobody is asking anyone to swear allegiance to Satan either and that is hardly a comparable example. Many people refer to this Mandate as a Tax while others don't, but in either case it shows similarity. Even the entire context of what's written there in Romans speaks to this IMO. What's being asked is simply that "Everyone" pay their share accordingly. Yet these Religious Business Owners don't want to do that and will go to whatever length to avoid it. Even if it means convincing everyone that a Fictional Business Entity has a Soul that is the same as their own Soul. In fact the whole idea when looked at from a Religious perspective actually seems more blasphemous because of it.

That whole principle thing is BS and I won't even waste time debating it. They buy and sell with companies who operate with modern day slave labor. They invest in companies that make the same exact meds they complain about. So don't tell me about their principles. Save that crap for the people who haven't already researched this for countless hours, cause I'm not buying it.

The corporation is not them and they are not the corporation. That is the whole basis of a For Profit Corporation and everyone knows it. This whole thread is about just that one single point. Besides that I have too many other examples that show the obvious double standards and failed rhetoric being used. It's not just from the Religious angle either. It comes in many different forms but each of them fail too in their own specific way. But that's a whole other topic anyway and so that's all I'm gonna bother saying about it here. I've said it all and more in other threads anyway.

This last addition, the part about Romans, doesn't even keep with the topic of this thread exactly but I did find it to be an interesting twist when I came across it. You read it the way you want it and I read it differently, that's all, no biggie. That's what makes Religion so flexible for those who choose to use it for whatever they choose to use it for. They get to Interpret their own truth out of it to fit their needs and wants. In fact, it's for that very reason why I choose not to use such tactics whenever any kind of objective truth is the goal. Because it's not objective at all, but subjective and whatever truth one thinks they've found, will only ever be a truth to them but holds no guarantee that same truth will apply for anyone else.

Like they used to say on Dragnet, "Just the Facts". I find Facts much more reliable than Interpretation.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 04:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar

It also says that:
slaves should obey their masters (employers would be the modern equivilent)


You're correct. In this case the Corporations are the Slaves of it's owners and of the State. The owners themselves however are not slaves, at least that's how it started out in this nation before it got all twisted up. But now it is the actual people who have become the Slaves of not only the State but Corporations as well. The Corporations are the new Masters and are even gaining more power over the State as well. Once that happens completely, humanity is screwed too.

That is why the idea of a Government for, of and by the people was so important. Government was a type of corporation that everyone had an equal share of and it's purpose was to protect our Freedom and Rights. Today, Corporations Own the Government and it is the Corporations which get the protections. That means also that only those who control the Corporations are protected as well. Since they are also Private, the majority of the populous become the new slaves.

I don't understand why it's so hard for most people to see it either. It's actually quite simple if one just steps back and looks at the whole picture. It's the Gigantic, Stinking, Blinking, dancing elephant in the room and yet most people just don't see it. But pretty soon, when that elephant steps on them or someone close to them hard enough they'll snap out of it and see it for what it is finally. Only then it will most likely be too late. I don't know why I waste time pointing it out anymore actually. I don't even like most people generally speaking. But I do care for those who I see get trampled by the process and it I hate seeing it so I guess that is why I do what little bit I can. For now anyway...



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 05:21 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

they can't get past their "not with my money" and sexual hangups??

As far as abstinence being a viable solution well
unless you are willing to accept your spouse's or future spouse's or girl friend's/boyfriend's decision that since no children are desired there should be no sex you really shouldn't be bringing that up as an option! I mean they might actually read your words and decide okay!! I don't want any kids so no!!!

Otherwise well, the ability to control the number of children a women brings into the word as well as how far they are spaced apart is a valid health issue and shouldn't be treated differently as any other heath issue there is!



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: windword
I had skimmed the whole thread before posting. After going over your posts again, I still see no reasoning as to specifically how this ruling violates anyone's freedom of speech OR denies anyone equal protection under the law.

You throw out snippets of legal claims you have heard through your favorite media outlets, but the fact is these claims are invalid. Even this SCOTUS recognized as much.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

My primary question about "corporate personhood"is:
If "they are people too", Why don't they pay the same taxes that you and I pay?
Their taxes are figured after expenses, that is "net income"; our taxes are figured at gross, before our expenditures are made.
Many even have a lower tax rate than most of us "regular people"

If this is to be a land of equals, does this make them more equal than the rest of us?



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

I never claimed that the SCOTUS ruling violates "Free Speech". The Hobby Lobby decision has NOTHING to do with free speech.

I said it violated the "Establishment Clause", as in "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . "


The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.
www.law.cornell.edu...


The Religious Freedom and Restoration Act allows the government to determine when and to what extent the government can burden religious freedoms, therefore making a law in respect to religion and religious expression. Not only that, but the SCOTUS ruling gave preferential treatment to a certain doctrine of Christianity, allowing the practice their beliefs to burden the expression of the beliefs and non-beliefs of their employees, and in this case, the tax payers.

THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, PERIOD


In Smith, the Court stated that burdens resulting from generally applicable law do not violate the free exercise of religion under the
First Amendment. 6 In RFRA, Congress says the opposite. The first clause of the statute reads: "The Congress finds that the framers of
the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the
Constitution."" Congress then proceeds to define the level of protection to be accorded free exercise of religion:

In general Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability [unless] ... it is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and... is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest"

The separation of powers violation inherent in RFRA is so evident that one is tempted to assume Congress meant something other
than what it said. Such an assumption would be a mistake. With RFRA, Congress has acted out of manifest disrespect for the Supreme
Court as an institution, and has done so in the most unsubtle fashion imaginable. Congress based its decision to alter the balance
of power between church and state under every law in the land solely on its distaste for Smith.


I think I've already proven my point the the SCOTUS ruling, and subsequent injunction, DOES violate these women's 14th Amendment rights to equal protection under the law.


edit on 21-7-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

I think I've already proven my point the the SCOTUS ruling, and subsequent injunction, DO violate these women's 14th Amendment rights to equal protection under the law.



Except you haven't. There is nothing in the law, or the SCOTUS ruling, that denies women access to that medication. As another poster noted, they could walk into a clinic and get it for free.

Hobby Lobby don't have to pay for men to get access to that medication either. Of course, you will immediately point out that men don't need it so there is a disproportional impact on women, therefore it is de facto targetting women, even if it is not strictly de jure, and you would be correct within the current context. However, the ruling is equally applicable to a situation where, for example, HL objected to paying for erectile dysfunction medication, which would have a disproportional impact on men. The ruling itself is neutral, even though the question that has given rise to it is framed within a context that affects one sex more than another.

Women are (to my recollection, I've not checked the figures, but go with me for the sake of example) statistically more likely to be subject to rape. Therefore, laws against rape disproportionately affect men as it is predominantly men that are convicted of the offence (consensual but statutorily illegal intercourse aside for one moment). Do those laws violate the equal protection rights? No, because the law itself is gender neutral; the fact that one gender might be disproportionately affected is not a reflection on any inherent inequality in the law itself.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

I said it violated the "Establishment Clause", as in "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . "



Again, no.

Think of this as a balancing act, and you have to find the solution that allows both parties to have their rights supported. The employee should not be forced to act in accordance with the religious beliefs of the company, while the company should not be forced to act in accordance with the religious/non-religious beliefs of the employee. How do you reconcile these two?

The first option is to force the company to pay. The employee has their right protected, the employer has their right quashed. The decision is effectively promoting the non-religious over the religious and forcing compliance.

The second option is to say the company does not have the pay. The employee does not lose their right to the medication as it is reasonably available through other means. The employer does not lose their right to exercise their religious belief.

Only one of these is a win-win situation that does not specifically burden either party by requiring them to adhere to a belief (whether religious or non-religious) that goes against their own beliefs. I'll give you a hint - it's the one that the courts chose. It was the correct decision in the circumstances and remains the most effective way to give full effect to both the words and meaning of the Constitution.
edit on 21-7-2014 by EvillerBob because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join