Hobby Lobby Ruling and Corporate "Persons"

a reply to: xuenchen

so why did the "person's" (hobby lobby's) rights not go out the window when it came to their gov't mandate??

And how can you say that hobby lobby and the 100 or so companies that are following suit aren't taking anything away from anybody?
People have been enjoying having birth control included as a preventive care item in insurance companies for quite awhile.
oh ya that's right the gov't can take away more from we the tax payers and just use that to provide their birth control.

um don't the owners of hobby lobby pay taxes also??
and these taxes will also in part be used to provide birth control to any women affected???

a reply to: dawnstar

The "Court" referred to the HHS rules and regulations about religious non-profits and implied those rules could apply to these newly classified "for-profit" closed corporations like Hobby Lobby.

Nobody is taking anything away from anybody.

With respect to an insured health plan, including a student health plan, the non-profit religious organization provides notice to its insurer that it objects to contraception coverage. The insurer then notifies enrollees in the health plan that it is providing them separate no-cost payments for contraceptive services for as long as they remain enrolled in the health plan.

Similarly, with respect to self-insured health plans, the non-profit religious organization provides notice to its third party administrator that objects to contraception coverage. The third party administrator then notifies enrollees in the health plans that it is providing or arranging separate no-cost payments for contraceptive services for them for as long as they remain enrolled in the health plan.

The final rules provide more details on the accommodation for both insurers and third party administrators.

Administration issues final rules on contraception coverage and religious organizations

This may actually apply to "for-profit" closed corporations and partnerships and sole-proprietors.

Assuming they have enough "full time" employees to be "mandated".

The government threw the first stone here.

Now their own windows are getting broken.

that doesn't answer my question though
the owner's business now doesn't have to provide coverage
the owner's themselves still have to prodive coverage for any underage child that may live in their household!
religious rights have not been protected
not for real people!

a reply to: windword

Ah, I see. You don't want me to control where my money goes. You want to make sure that big government stays in the same hands it's always been in.

Btw, I've never donated to anything having to do with the Koch brothers; however, I do know that my teachers' union dues were definitely donated to John Kerry and groups who did their best to make sure that I would vote for him in the name of the teachers' union.

So, I've actually given more money to liberal democrats than I ever have to anyone who is conservative, and it was done without my say so.

And you are apparently just fine with that - you know my money being taken from me to support pols you no doubt agree with even though I don't.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: dawnstar

The "Court" referred to the HHS rules and regulations about religious non-profits and implied those rules could apply to these newly classified "for-profit" closed corporations like Hobby Lobby.

Nobody is taking anything away from anybody.

With respect to an insured health plan, including a student health plan, the non-profit religious organization provides notice to its insurer that it objects to contraception coverage. The insurer then notifies enrollees in the health plan that it is providing them separate no-cost payments for contraceptive services for as long as they remain enrolled in the health plan.

Similarly, with respect to self-insured health plans, the non-profit religious organization provides notice to its third party administrator that objects to contraception coverage. The third party administrator then notifies enrollees in the health plans that it is providing or arranging separate no-cost payments for contraceptive services for them for as long as they remain enrolled in the health plan.

The final rules provide more details on the accommodation for both insurers and third party administrators.

Administration issues final rules on contraception coverage and religious organizations

This may actually apply to "for-profit" closed corporations and partnerships and sole-proprietors.

Assuming they have enough "full time" employees to be "mandated".

The government threw the first stone here.

Now their own windows are getting broken.

Except,SCOTUS allowed for an injection for 3rd party waivers, so that now, disenfranchised women cannot get contraception coverage, and then they (SCOTUS) left town to go on vacation!

Yet moments before they adjourned for their summer recess, the justices proved they can act quite quickly and recklessly when it comes to violating the terms of a controversial opinion they handed down only days earlier. It’s as if the loaner car the court gave us in the Hobby Lobby ruling broke down mere blocks from the shop.

That means that if there is a slightly less burdensome way to implement the law, it needs to be used. To prove that the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate was not the “least restrictive alternative,” the court pointed to a workaround in the law for nonprofits: If there are religious objections to a medical treatment, third parties will provide coverage to the employees.

Yet in an unsigned emergency order granted Thursday evening, the very same court said that this very same workaround it had just praised was also unconstitutional, that this workaround also burdened the religious freedom of religious employers. Overnight, the cure has become the disease.

www.slate.com...

Because of this Hobby Lobby ruling, and now the Wheaten College injunction, tens of thousands of women are denied their 14th Amendment Equal Protection Rights, and are without birth control overage. Because you know, Jesus died. Yeah! That'll stop abortion! Stupid Christians.....

a reply to: windword

That's what happens when unConstitutional laws get struck down.

a reply to: ketsuko

Do you have a super pact? Do you have tens of thousands, even millions of dollars to invest in one candidate that campaign contribution limits were inhibiting your free speech?

No?

Then you can spend your money however you want. I couldn't care less.

The last time I checked Hobby Lobby is not a church, the holy bible is not a healthcare plan and the supreme court is not god.

a reply to: xuenchen

The unconstitutional law here in the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act. It conflicts with the Establishment Clause, as it is a law that dictates when the government can limit religious rights.

There is NO logic that can defend the removal of Constitutional rights from one block of the population to satisfy a religious rich minority. The COURT has denied a huge portion of the American population their 14th Amendment rights to Equal Protection, in favor of inequity.

SCOTUS is guilty of treason of FAILING to uphold the Constitution of the Untied States of America as they were sworn to do. HANG 'EM HIGH!

originally posted by: rupertg
The last time I checked Hobby Lobby is not a church, the holy bible is not a healthcare plan and the supreme court is not god.

And maybe HHS and IRS are wrong for "classifying" some religious groups as "non-profit" and granting exemptions for taxes and some insurance mandates.

They set the precedent of discrimination.

Now everybody can get into the act.

a reply to: windword

A law must be Constitutional and non-infringing before the 14th applies.

The 14th doesn't apply to laws that have been struck down.

It isnt that easy. The legal definition changes from statute to statute. You are broad brushing a very important topic. You cannot define "person" like you are attempting. It means something different in many occurances. It is always in the statutes definition. But even then it gets crazy. Its why Bill Clinton could look you in the eye and be truthful stating "it depends on what the maning of the word "is" is in talking legalese.

A link to government tricks

Text www.natural-person.ca...

a reply to: mOjOm

a reply to: xuenchen

SCOTUS did not strike down the Contraception mandate or the several other SCOTUS cases that protect a woman's right to contraception.

SCOTUS ruled that, not only Hobby Lobby, but YOU, now have to pay for birth control through tax dollars. Hypocritical Hobby Lobby is making ALL Christians pay for contraception now.

You can thank SCOTUS for the fast track to Single (TAX) Payer Obamacare, that's coming soon.

a reply to: windword

SCOTUS ruled that, not only Hobby Lobby, but YOU, now have to pay for birth control through tax dollars. Hypocritical Hobby Lobby is making ALL Christians pay for contraception now.

Taxpayers have been funding Planned Parenthood for decades.

SCOTUS did not strike down the Contraception mandate or the several other SCOTUS cases that protect a woman's right to contraception.

Never said they did.

They struck down the mandate that forces somebody to pay.

No infringements on Women's rights have happened.

You can thank SCOTUS for the fast track to Single (TAX) Payer Obamacare, that's coming soon.

Hardly possible with the economy and the corruption. Not to mention the unConstitutional methods required. Although it would be possible but only with super high tax rates to pay for it.

a reply to: windword

No, that's not how it works. The government wanted to curtail any and all political speech if they so chose by limiing the speech of any and all incorporated Political Action Committees.

Btw, do you have a problem with unions essentially engaging in political electioneering? If not, then why are you so against PACs doing it? It amounts to the same thing.

a reply to: xuenchen

No infringements on Women's rights have happened.

You're wrong about that. Right now, because of the SCTOUS ruling and the Wheaten College injunction, tens of thousands of women are disenfranchised from their personal health care provider's birth control coverage. And, they will continue to be disenfranchised until SCOTUS comes to back to rule on its injunction cases OR Congress creates financial in roads to provide the coverage.

Less access to birth control = more unwanted pregnancies = more abortion

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen

No infringements on Women's rights have happened.

You're wrong about that. Right now, because of the SCTOUS ruling and the Wheaten College injunction, tens of thousands of women are disenfranchised from their personal health care provider's birth control coverage. And, they will continue to be disenfranchised until SCOTUS comes to back to rule on its injunction cases OR Congress creates financial in roads to provide the coverage.


T

No, they are not. For one thing, if the employer is providing the coverage, then it isn't the woman's personal health care. It is a perk or benefit she receives as a condition of her employment, and as such, is provided at her employer's discretion and as much as the employer deems fit.

This is why they are called "benefits" of employment and not "rights" of employment.

Also, there is nothing in the ruling the prevents her from buying her own birth control, and no one at Hobby Lobby stops her from buying her own, either.

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.

religious beliefs?....what Christian beliefs tells this private owner to buy products made in a communist country...he won't pay for his American women workers for birth control (all of them)...but...he pays communists to abort children, if the parents have more than one child...and the right-wing supreme court judges go along with him....they should be judging a pie-eating contest, because their critical-thinking, and reasoning ability for human jurisprudence is that of a 2-year old

a reply to: ketsuko

The ACA's contraception mandate is still in tact and still in effect. Every woman that has an employer provided personal health care policy is entitled to full contraceptive coverage of ALL FDA approved contraceptive methods. That is the law!

The fact that, due to this ruling, tens of thousands of women who happen to work for "Christian" nutters, who can't have their employees making family planning choices for themselves, are disenfranchised from those services. That is a violation of those women's 14th Amendment rights of Equal Protection under the law. PERIOD!

originally posted by: manna2
It isnt that easy. The legal definition changes from statute to statute. You are broad brushing a very important topic. You cannot define "person" like you are attempting. It means something different in many occurances. It is always in the statutes definition. But even then it gets crazy. Its why Bill Clinton could look you in the eye and be truthful stating "it depends on what the maning of the word "is" is in talking legalese.

Not sure what you're talking about exactly. I thought I was very careful in how I used my words to make it clear what "Person" I was talking about. Maybe you can point out where I made a mistake however.

Just so we're clear also. I'm not Defining anything either. Like I've said multiple times already, it's been defined already, I'm just showing the definition, I'm not changing it or altering it. So let me do it once more.

What is a Corporation - Law Dictionary
An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state or nation, composed, in some rare instances, of a single person and his successors, being the incumbents of a particular oltice, but ordinarily consisting of an association of numerous individuals, who subsist as a body politic under a special denomination, which is regarded In law as having a personality and existence distinct from that of its several members, and which is, by the same authority, vested with the capacity of continuous succession, irrespective of changes in its membership, either in perpetuity or for a limited term of years, and of acting as a unit or single individual in matters relating to the common purpose of the association, within the scope of the powers and authorities conferred upon such bodies by law.

Doesn't really get much more clear than that.

It has nothing to do with Bill Clinton nor is it a problem of "legalese" either.