Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:



    What if,what if, what if. 


    The OWNERS of a company have religious freedom rights  protected by the constitution, not the companies themselves.  Companies are just groups of people, for purposes of this discussion.  You cannot force them to violate those rights simply because their money is invested in certain ways.


    This is the nature of rights: personal, and absolute.  They are not subject to government whims.




    No, those 'rights' are based on it's corporate status and are transferrable. If that company is sold then the new owners inherit those 'rights'.


    That makes those rights inherent to the corporation ... corporate rights.... regardless of who the owners are.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     

     

    The OWNERS of a company have religious freedom rights  protected by the constitution, not the companies themselves.

     

     



    Then why were those OWNERS provide insurance with contraception coverage up until the day before the filed the suit? It took Obama for them to "find Jesus"? Is that what you're saying?

     

     

    Note: no need to answer.



    They still provide contraception coverage.

    you need to get your head out of the darker reaches of your anatomy and get connected with some facts. Even a couple would help your argument.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    In response to high-road's comment:


    In response to ronreganfan's comment:




    What if,what if, what if. 


     


     


    The OWNERS of a company have religious freedom rights  protected by the constitution, not the companies themselves.  Companies are just groups of people, for purposes of this discussion.  You cannot force them to violate those rights simply because their money is invested in certain ways.


     


    This is the nature of rights: personal, and absolute.  They are not subject to government whims.


     


     




    No, those 'rights' are based on it's corporate status and are transferrable. If that company is sold then the new owners inherit those 'rights'.


     


     


    That makes those rights inherent to the corporation ... corporate rights.... regardless of who the owners are.




    No. Simply bad understanding of the law on your part.


    tightly held corporation.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to high-road's comment:

     

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     



    What if,what if, what if. 

     

     

     

     

     

    The OWNERS of a company have religious freedom rights  protected by the constitution, not the companies themselves.  Companies are just groups of people, for purposes of this discussion.  You cannot force them to violate those rights simply because their money is invested in certain ways.

     

     

     

    This is the nature of rights: personal, and absolute.  They are not subject to government whims.

     

     

     

     

     

     



    No, those 'rights' are based on it's corporate status and are transferrable. If that company is sold then the new owners inherit those 'rights'.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    That makes those rights inherent to the corporation ... corporate rights.... regardless of who the owners are.

     



    No. Simply bad understanding of the law on your part.

     

    tightly held corporation.



    So you're saying that if the company was sold to another 'tightly held' group they wouldn't get the same rights inferred on the corporation?

    Now that's just dumb and illogical.

    And what constitutes 'tightly held'?

    Is there a threshold? 10 owners, 20, 30 ...

     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    Woman’s Attempt To Troll Liberals Backfires

    Holly Fisher, a conservative Christian, has been getting insane amounts of attention recently by trolling liberals on social media over the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision. Unfortunately, she tried to up the ante one too many times and now she has unintentionally become the living symbol of how fundamentalism, no matter in what religion, looks disturbingly similar.

    After gaining internet fame for posing for a “conservative hat trick” by standing in front of a Hobby Lobby wearing a pro-life t-shirt and drinking out of a Chick-fil-a cup, Fisher wanted to find her next big political statement. Fisher’s fans had apparently been telling her that just standing in front of Hobby Lobby wasn’t good enough. The astute patriots noted that the most important aspects of being an American – guns, the Bible and the American flag – were conspicuously absent. Assuming she could get a further rise out of the liberals she hates so much, Fisher quickly tweeted a new photo to prove just how patriotic she was.

    HL

    This prompted someone to post the obvious comparison: Fisher’s picture next to an almost identical picture of a young woman holding a similar rifle, in front of a Islamic flag and clutching the Quran. Even their crooked smiles are exactly the same. It’s uncanny.

    2x

     

    An amazing reminder that had she been born in a different place in the world with a different religion she would proudly be standing up for Islam and not Christianity. Fundamentalism knows no national borders.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    Can someone hold a religious objection to contraception viz. the courts and yet still use contraception themselves?

    A large majority of catholic people regularly use contraception, and many have abortions.

    Does the hypocrisy lie with the adherent or the dogma?  Either way, it's rather unseemly.

     

    "When you're born, you get a ticket to the freak show. When you're born in America, you get a front-row seat."  - GC

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    Can someone hold a religious objection to contraception viz. the courts and yet still use contraception themselves?


    You can go to court no matter what your motives are, so long as your legal claim is sound.

     

     

     Hence, it only matters in a moral or political sense that Hobby Lobby is full of dirty stinking hypocrites.



    I get that.

    But it occurs to me that before this became a political issue, catholics were the only major christian denomination who objected dogmatically to contraception (beyond the rhythm method, of course).

    I'm willing to listen to believers of other religions who can clarify.  But I know that one of the longtime schisms between catholicism and protestantism was use of birth control.

    I know it can be a fool's errand to look for consistency in religion, but the whole "life begins at conception" argument doesn't really square with reproductive biology.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    In response to high-road's comment:

    Woman’s Attempt To Troll Liberals Backfires

    Holly Fisher, a conservative Christian, has been getting insane amounts of attention recently by trolling liberals on social media over the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision. Unfortunately, she tried to up the ante one too many times and now she has unintentionally become the living symbol of how fundamentalism, no matter in what religion, looks disturbingly similar.

    After gaining internet fame for posing for a “conservative hat trick” by standing in front of a Hobby Lobby wearing a pro-life t-shirt and drinking out of a Chick-fil-a cup, Fisher wanted to find her next big political statement. Fisher’s fans had apparently been telling her that just standing in front of Hobby Lobby wasn’t good enough. The astute patriots noted that the most important aspects of being an American – guns, the Bible and the American flag – were conspicuously absent. Assuming she could get a further rise out of the liberals she hates so much, Fisher quickly tweeted a new photo to prove just how patriotic she was.

    HL

    This prompted someone to post the obvious comparison: Fisher’s picture next to an almost identical picture of a young woman holding a similar rifle, in front of a Islamic flag and clutching the Quran. Even their crooked smiles are exactly the same. It’s uncanny.

    2x

     

    An amazing reminder that had she been born in a different place in the world with a different religion she would proudly be standing up for Islam and not Christianity. Fundamentalism knows no national borders.



    Which one is fighting the war on women?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    In response to high-road's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to high-road's comment:

     

     

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

     



    What if,what if, what if. 

     

     

     

     

     

    The OWNERS of a company have religious freedom rights  protected by the constitution, not the companies themselves.  Companies are just groups of people, for purposes of this discussion.  You cannot force them to violate those rights simply because their money is invested in certain ways.

     

     

     

    This is the nature of rights: personal, and absolute.  They are not subject to government whims.

     

     

     

     

     

     



    No, those 'rights' are based on it's corporate status and are transferrable. If that company is sold then the new owners inherit those 'rights'.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    That makes those rights inherent to the corporation ... corporate rights.... regardless of who the owners are.

     



    No. Simply bad understanding of the law on your part.

     

    tightly held corporation.



    So you're saying that if the company was sold to another 'tightly held' group they wouldn't get the same rights inferred on the corporation?

    Now that's just dumb and illogical.

    And what constitutes 'tightly held'?

    Is there a threshold? 10 owners, 20, 30 ...

     



    Go get a law degree and check back with us.

    amazing ignorance of individual rights on the left.  Thank god SCOTUS has an understanding , at least five of 'em.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to high-road's comment:

    Woman’s Attempt To Troll Liberals Backfires

    Holly Fisher, a conservative Christian, has been getting insane amounts of attention recently by trolling liberals on social media over the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision. Unfortunately, she tried to up the ante one too many times and now she has unintentionally become the living symbol of how fundamentalism, no matter in what religion, looks disturbingly similar.

    After gaining internet fame for posing for a “conservative hat trick” by standing in front of a Hobby Lobby wearing a pro-life t-shirt and drinking out of a Chick-fil-a cup, Fisher wanted to find her next big political statement. Fisher’s fans had apparently been telling her that just standing in front of Hobby Lobby wasn’t good enough. The astute patriots noted that the most important aspects of being an American – guns, the Bible and the American flag – were conspicuously absent. Assuming she could get a further rise out of the liberals she hates so much, Fisher quickly tweeted a new photo to prove just how patriotic she was.

    HL

    This prompted someone to post the obvious comparison: Fisher’s picture next to an almost identical picture of a young woman holding a similar rifle, in front of a Islamic flag and clutching the Quran. Even their crooked smiles are exactly the same. It’s uncanny.

    2x

     

    An amazing reminder that had she been born in a different place in the world with a different religion she would proudly be standing up for Islam and not Christianity. Fundamentalism knows no national borders.



    Which one is fighting the war on women?




    You tell me ... seems they both take their own particular brand of jihad to an absurd level.

    Crazy fundamentalism knows no national borders.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:


    In response to high-road's comment:


    In response to ronreganfan's comment:


    In response to high-road's comment:



     


     


    In response to ronreganfan's comment:


     




    What if,what if, what if. 


     


     


     


     


     


    The OWNERS of a company have religious freedom rights  protected by the constitution, not the companies themselves.  Companies are just groups of people, for purposes of this discussion.  You cannot force them to violate those rights simply because their money is invested in certain ways.


     


     


     


    This is the nature of rights: personal, and absolute.  They are not subject to government whims.


     


     


     


     


     


     




    No, those 'rights' are based on it's corporate status and are transferrable. If that company is sold then the new owners inherit those 'rights'.


     


     


     


     


     


     


    That makes those rights inherent to the corporation ... corporate rights.... regardless of who the owners are.


     




    No. Simply bad understanding of the law on your part.


     


    tightly held corporation.




    So you're saying that if the company was sold to another 'tightly held' group they wouldn't get the same rights inferred on the corporation?


    Now that's just dumb and illogical.


    And what constitutes 'tightly held'?


    Is there a threshold? 10 owners, 20, 30 ...


     




    Go get a law degree and check back with us.


    amazing ignorance of individual rights on the left.  Thank god SCOTUS has an understanding , at least five of 'em.





    So you don't know the answer yet you'll blindly believe the decision is right because the echo chambers told you so.


    Well done ... remember to keep that nose tucked.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    Go get a law degree and check back with us. amazing ignorance of individual rights on the left.  Thank god SCOTUS has an understanding , at least five of 'em.


     

     

    This decision is an example of what you'd call "activist" if you disagreed with it.

     

    Corporate personhood, money as literal speech, and now this. These have all been brand new extensions of the law that were not so much as imagined at the time of the framing.



    If following the constitution is you definition of activist, then I agree.

    i think the problem is that progressives have been chipping away at the constitution for a couple of generations, and when the actual factual contrition is applied to the issue, they are shocked at the reassertion of straightforward fact.

    we see this most clearly in the recent decisions about the 2nd amendment, the reassertion do it as an individual right. Here, it the reassertion of another bedrock right, freedom of religion from government interference.

    progressives can't win these arguments unless they throw the constitution overboard.

    I am impressed with the similarity between progressives here and radical Islamists over there. Both assert control by strangling individual rights to assert their will over others.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share