Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The question may become, if a person is forced to pay for abortion and birth control. Which could have far reaching implication if the SCOTUS rules no. What about those who buy into Obamacare? But let's say they rule just on if a company has to supply birth control to its employees. What if there was a small company run by Muslims. Say an owner and two employees, would the owner be required to supply BC and Abortion against their strongly held religious beliefs? That, simply, is what the SCOTUS is going to decide.
You are either a corporation or you are not
If you want to run your business as a family business, then do so
But if you choose to incorporate to provide your family legal protections from the decisions that you make then you can't claim that the corporation has the ethical and religious values of the family
You can't hide behind a corporation when it hurts you and claim individual rights when it helps you
HL is run by a family unlike most corporations. HL is not doing anything illegal nor underhanded, your implication is absurd.
5-4 against Hobby Lobby with Roberts the deciding vote
How do corporations have religion? Corporations are formed to create legal protection for the owner. Now, how does a corporation have the religion of the owner?
Exactly the point.
We don't send the CEO of companies to prison for what their companies do, because of the said protection of Corporate Law.
The Hobby Lobby case would throw all that out the window.
Bernie Madoff would be very interested in knowing about how CEOs don't go to jail.
I bet they rule in favor of Hobby Lobby. The drugs in question are only necessary when people are completely irresponsible. And people should have to pay out of pocket for those drugs because the government shouldn't cover avoidable stupidity.
And we have a right to be "completely irresponsible" if we want to. It's that pesky freedom thing.
No you don't. You do not have the right to start shooting in a movie theater. You don't have the right to drive a POS car. You don't have the right to speed down the road. YOU are expected to NOT act irresponsible, where in the hell do you get your ideas?
Exactly the point.
We don't send the CEO of companies to prison for what their companies do, because of the said protection of Corporate Law.
The Hobby Lobby case would throw all that out the window.
Bernie Madoff would be very interested in knowing about how CEOs don't go to jail.
In the Madoff case, the corporation didn't do anything wrong. He did. The crimes were committed by Bernie Madoff personally.
Well, occupied has him beat. You should have seen what he said in one of my other threads yesterday morning. He wished I had never been born. But anywho, this is a SCOTUS ruling thread. Anyone who wants to make a prediction can, and if they feel so inclined, they can cite legal precedent in their arguments. I'd love to see it.
You said you don't speculate. .what the fuck do you think this is?In the waning hours before the Supreme Court is set to rule on the Hobby Lobby case, and Obamacare's abortion mandate, what do you predict they will rule? Me? Well, I think they will rule against Hobby Lobby, and I would love to be wrong. I predict a 5-4 ruling against Hobby Lobby. Not because I want them to, but because I have a bad feeling about this entire case. Though, the oral arguments did sound promising, that didn't mean much when they upheld Obamacare. But let me repeat, I WANT to be wrong.
As for the Harris v. Quinn case, I predict a 5-4 ruling in favor of the plaintiff. I believe that just because a certain field in the public sector is unionized, it doesn't mean that you can force someone who has a profession in said field to associate with you and make them pay dues. That's where government is wrong. I can understand the First Amendment argument here. She has a right to not associate with public sector unions in the state of Illinois. Moreover, I think the contract that the SEIU Healthcare Illinois-Indiana made with the state violates the First Amendment altogether and is unconstitutional. This case has the potential to kill unions altogether, if the court rules in favor of Pamela Harris. And it will most likely overturn the Abood v. Detroit Board of Education decision of 1977.
So, what say you?
Actually, I do think a 7-2 ruling would be more applicable here. I see a clear violation of a worker's First and and Fourteenth Amendment rights here. This amounts to simply forcing someone to join a union. The pact those unions made with the State also violates the 14th Amendment. These violations are so glaring, the SCOTUS would be foolish to rule otherwise.
And we have a right to be "completely irresponsible" if we want to. It's that pesky freedom thing.
No you don't. You do not have the right to start shooting in a movie theater. You don't have the right to drive a POS car. You don't have the right to speed down the road. YOU are expected to NOT act irresponsible, where in the hell do you get your ideas?
Oh and where in the constitution does it say that you have to always be responsible? If someone wants to have sex all day, why should the government tell them no way?
BTW, False equivalency. Shooting in a movie theater is not the same as contraception.
Actually, I do think a 7-2 ruling would be more applicable here. I see a clear violation of a worker's First and and Fourteenth Amendment rights here. This amounts to simply forcing someone to join a union. The pact those unions made with the State also violates the 14th Amendment. These violations are so glaring, the SCOTUS would be foolish to rule otherwise.
You aren't forced to join unions you dipshit.
And more speculation from you.
Actually, I do think a 7-2 ruling would be more applicable here. I see a clear violation of a worker's First and and Fourteenth Amendment rights here. This amounts to simply forcing someone to join a union. The pact those unions made with the State also violates the 14th Amendment. These violations are so glaring, the SCOTUS would be foolish to rule otherwise.
You aren't forced to join unions you dipshit.
And more speculation from you.
To get certain jobs you are required to join unions in certain states. If that isn't forced I am not sure what is, I guess the option is to not work at the company, thus not forced.
Actually, I do think a 7-2 ruling would be more applicable here. I see a clear violation of a worker's First and and Fourteenth Amendment rights here. This amounts to simply forcing someone to join a union. The pact those unions made with the State also violates the 14th Amendment. These violations are so glaring, the SCOTUS would be foolish to rule otherwise.
You aren't forced to join unions you dipshit.
And more speculation from you.
To get certain jobs you are required to join unions in certain states. If that isn't forced I am not sure what is, I guess the option is to not work at the company, thus not forced.
You aren't forced to join unions you dipshit.
And more speculation from you.
To get certain jobs you are required to join unions in certain states. If that isn't forced I am not sure what is, I guess the option is to not work at the company, thus not forced.
My job will be union once I pass probationary. I didn't need to take the job. I wanted too because it pays very good and has good benefits for my family. They are not forcing me. You always have the choice to not take the job.
Seriously unions are not bad. I've done a lot of shit jobs where the owners ass rape you wage wise. Unions are a tool, like a gun..there is no difference between unon people who do shit and are corrupt and a ceo who is corrupt.
You aren't forced to join unions you dipshit.
And more speculation from you.
To get certain jobs you are required to join unions in certain states. If that isn't forced I am not sure what is, I guess the option is to not work at the company, thus not forced.
Yes, you're forced into accepting higher wages, and better benefits and working conditions.
Shit, man, an employer could declare himself a Christian Scientist and deny all health coverage.
Actually, I do think a 7-2 ruling would be more applicable here. I see a clear violation of a worker's First and and Fourteenth Amendment rights here. This amounts to simply forcing someone to join a union. The pact those unions made with the State also violates the 14th Amendment. These violations are so glaring, the SCOTUS would be foolish to rule otherwise.
You aren't forced to join unions you dipshit.
And more speculation from you.
To get certain jobs you are required to join unions in certain states. If that isn't forced I am not sure what is, I guess the option is to not work at the company, thus not forced.
To get certain jobs you are required to join unions in certain states. If that isn't forced I am not sure what is, I guess the option is to not work at the company, thus not forced.
Yes, you're forced into accepting higher wages, and better benefits and working conditions.
On the surface this appears to be true but is not always the case. I was talking to another union man the about 5 years ago about pensions and retiring. He said he was under the Union plan and they had cut his benefit, without any sort of input, from 2.5 percent to 1 percent. Now maybe that has recovered since then but I do believe if a corporation did the same there would be news and an investigation.
Actually, I do think a 7-2 ruling would be more applicable here. I see a clear violation of a worker's First and and Fourteenth Amendment rights here. This amounts to simply forcing someone to join a union. The pact those unions made with the State also violates the 14th Amendment. These violations are so glaring, the SCOTUS would be foolish to rule otherwise.
You aren't forced to join unions you dipshit.
And more speculation from you.
