Hobby Lobby Ruling and Corporate "Persons"

a reply to: xuenchen

Well, SCOTUS ruled that the ACA is tax, for what that's worth, and you know what they say about taxes and death.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen

What government do you line in? I live in a Republic that protects individual rights and utilizes Democracy to represent the needs and well being of the people that it serves. Hobby Lobby, et al, serves no one but their own financial interest.

Individual "rights" go out the window when government mandates take effect.

Hobby Lobby is taking nothing away from anybody.

The Courts said so.

Exactly! The decision made was the right one. The owners of the company have every legal right to not provide something that is against their beliefs. Those claiming otherwise need to gain some actual understanding.

For all those protesting the decision (not ; I know you get it), think of it this way. You hire someone to work in your home. That person comes in and starts demanding that you purchase something for them, and you refuse, because you don't believe that you should be obligated to do so. You aren't taking anything away from that person; you are simply not offering something they want, with which you do not agree. That person can go buy whatever it is themselves, instead of demanding that you pay for it for them, simply because you hired them to do a job. Being an employer doesn't mean you surrender your rights as a citizen.

Again, the correct decision was made in this case.

Now a question for those against it; would you protest as much if it wasn't a Christian company involved? Be honest.,

originally posted by: windword
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.
*snip*

Please quote the passage of the Constitution that guarantees employer-paid contraceptive coverage. Oh, that's right; there is no such passage! You got the "no logic" part right; just applied it wrongly.

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

Exactly! The decision made was the right one. The owners of the company have every legal right to not provide something that is against their beliefs. Those claiming otherwise need to gain some actual understanding.

The Owners are Not Providing anything, Hobby Lobby the Corporation is and they are not one in the same. That is the whole purpose of the Corporation, to separate the Owners from the Business in their Rights and Responsibilities. That is the whole point of this thread to show that, which I have several times already.

Once again:
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,...which is regarded In law as having a personality and existence distinct from that of its several members...

For all those protesting the decision (not ; I know you get it), think of it this way. You hire someone to work in your home. That person comes in and starts demanding that you purchase something for them, and you refuse, because you don't believe that you should be obligated to do so. You aren't taking anything away from that person; you are simply not offering something they want, with which you do not agree. That person can go buy whatever it is themselves, instead of demanding that you pay for it for them, simply because you hired them to do a job. Being an employer doesn't mean you surrender your rights as a citizen.

You example isn't anything like this situation. There is no Legal separation between you and your home like there is with a corp and it's owners. Also, it is the Corporation which is Legally hiring the employee and it is the corporation which is liable and responsible for it's actions, not the owners themselves. That is the way corporations work otherwise if the owners were also responsible you could sue them as well as the corp, but that would defeat the whole purpose of having it.

The rules and responsibilities of a Corporation differ from those of Natural People, including it's owners. Corporations are not REAL NATURAL PEOPLE, they are fake, legal entities, created by man, and therefore have no Religious beliefs. They aren't even a conscious entity and to say otherwise is completely insane. We all know that a Corporation isn't an actual person. They don't think for themselves, have feelings, beliefs or anything else of their own mind. They have no mind. A corporation isn't an entity with any kind of free will to even have it's own beliefs. So while there is no problem with the owner objecting on religious beliefs, there is a problem with the Corp doing so. The owner does control some of the actions and purpose for the corp but so does the STATE.

Again, the correct decision was made in this case.

Now a question for those against it; would you protest as much if it wasn't a Christian company involved? Be honest.,

Of course I would. I don't care what Religion it is that is making the claim. Corporations DO NOT have an independent mind or will of their own and therefore cannot have Religious Beliefs. We create them, not God or any other supernatural being. This isn't about fighting Christians per se, but since they are the ones trying to BS their way into this, then it's Christians who I must call out on it. If you think I'd give a pass to some other Religion for doing the same thing, you're crazy and obviously don't know me too well.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Like it or not, the ACA is still the law of the land, and access to ALL FDA approved contraception, at no extra cost, still applies to women who are employed by Hobby Lobby, et al, whose rights are protected under the 14th Amendment.

You might also wanna take a look at Title X

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

Please quote the passage of the Constitution that guarantees employer-paid contraceptive coverage. Oh, that's right; there is no such passage! You got the "no logic" part right; just applied it wrongly.

Please point out the Religious Scripture that talks about Corporations having Religious Beliefs. Oh that's right, there is no such passage. You got the "no logic" part right; just applied it wrongly.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Like it or not, the ACA is still the law of the land, and access to ALL FDA approved contraception, at no extra cost, still applies to women who are employed by Hobby Lobby, et al, whose rights are protected under the 14th Amendment.

You might also wanna take a look at Title X

Public Law 91-572

SEC. 2. It is the purpose of this Act-

(1) to assist in making comprehensive voluntary family planning
services readily available to all persons desiring such
services

Voluntary

PL 91-572

a reply to: xuenchen

Yeah, so what? Nobody is forcing anyone to take birth control.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen

Yeah, so what? Nobody is forcing anyone to take birth control.

It's Voluntary

a reply to: mOjOm

I appreciate your passion for this, but you have your definitions wrong.

The first thing you need to realize about law, is that you can't pick your definitions for ANY TERM from wherever you want...

And, as a defense attorney for 15 years, (and a conspiracy theorist the whole way through) let me tell you that a "legal dictionary" just isn't real. It's an internet invention. Well, there were a few dictionaries before that, but the point here is that JUDGES interpret the law.

When a JUDGE interprets the law, he has superseded for his "area", and overruled all legal dictionaries that he has read.

When the SCOTUS interprets the law, they have superseded and overruled ALL LEGAL DICTIONARIES IN THE US. AND ALL LAW PREVIOUSLY WRITTEN.

There are literally pages upon pages of law and legal terms that classify what corporations are in various states. I can assure you that a definition from "thelawdictionary.org" is not only silly, but downright ignorant. There are 50 states in this country, all with highly dissimilar and similar laws regarding the exact same actions.

There are two sides to this case. Side 1 has people like you.

Side 2, has people that believe in freedom without government intervention in things so small as "birth control".

You may not realize it, but you are in fact, a government and statist sycophant bent on controlling the will of free people to further your liberal welfare state attitude where people should pay for you.

a reply to: WhatAreThey

Side 2, has people that believe in freedom without government intervention in things so small as "birth control".

You may not realize it, but you are in fact, a government and statist sycophant bent on controlling the will of free people to further your liberal welfare state attitude where people should pay for you.

For an attorney one might think that you might understand what the issue is here. This thread isn't about free contraception, it's about this Court ruling that corporations can have sincerely held religious beliefs. That may be how some Supreme Court Justices interpret "We The People", but many of us people disagree with corporation having such a status.

And when did having a health insurance policy through your employer equal a "welfare state"? Conflate an issue much? Oh right, defense lawyer, got it.

originally posted by: WhatAreThey

There are two sides to this case. Side 1 has people like you.

Side 2, has people that believe in freedom without government intervention in things so small as "birth control".

You may not realize it, but you are in fact, a government and statist sycophant bent on controlling the will of free people to further your liberal welfare state attitude where people should pay for you.

NO. PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WILL YOU PEOPLE PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT I SAY!! I'm not for Limiting People!!! I'm for Limiting Corporations!!!

I'm for Limiting or controlling Corporations Not People. That includes Government as well. Government is a Corporation too, only at least everyone has an equal share of that Corporation. Private Corporations don't. So you see it's not me who is the liberal welfare state lover, it's you. Because you believe in letting Private Corps. make slaves of People. You don't care about Freedom for People, you care about Freedom for Corps. But Corps aren't people and in fact they are stealing everything from the People!!!

You have it all backwards. I don't want bigger Government any more than you. But I also don't want Bigger Corporations trampling all over everything either. I'm the one fighting for Free People not you. You are fighting for Free Corporations, you just don't see it because you're convinced that Corporations are people, but they aren't people. People are people and ever day they are becoming more and more the slaves of Corporations who have slowly been buying up Governments.

That's the difference. You're not helping People be more free by allowing Corporations to run wild, you're hurting them. I don't know how many times or how many ways I have to say it before you understand the difference. I HATE GOVERNMENT but at least we all have a say in what the Government is doing. What they should be doing is Protecting People and Regulating Business, not the other way around.

originally posted by: WhatAreThey

And, as a defense attorney for 15 years, (and a conspiracy theorist the whole way through) let me tell you that a "legal dictionary" just isn't real. It's an internet invention. Well, there were a few dictionaries before that, but the point here is that JUDGES interpret the law.

I think you're lying about being a defense attorney of 15 years too BTW. If you are however, then I doubt you're a very good one. The reason I say this is because on Mar, 16 2012 you made this thread in which you talk about an experience you had while on Jury Duty. In this thread you say:

I'm writing about this because I learned about Jury Nullification from this site a year or two ago, and thought I should give my first hand experience that it is real and it is actively being blocked by Judges in the court system. I knew saying this would get me out of the case. I simply can't afford to spend a week on Jury duty for $15 a day!

So roughly 4 years ago, after you've allegedly been a defense attorney for over a decade, you didn't know about "Jury Nullification" until you read about it on ATS??? Really???

Now, I myself am not a lawyer but I would imagine that a practicing DA(short for Defense Attorney not District Attorney) with over 10 years experience would have been aware of something like that without having to learn it from a conspiracy website online. Nor would they have to use it as a means of getting dismissed from Jury Duty. Of course you may have been lying in your post about having Jury Duty also. In either case, after reading other posts you've made, especially the one about Jury Duty, I fail to see any evidence of credibility on your part.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

-------------------
"Exactly! The decision made was the right one. The owners of the company have every legal right to not provide something that is against their beliefs. Those claiming otherwise need to gain some actual understanding. "

----------------
But the owners of the company may not have that right although the corporation does!
Those owners are obligated under the mandate to provide acceptable coverage for their dependents and in order for it to be acceptable it still have to provide birth control coverage. If a husband choses to include their wife in that plan it still have to have birth control coverage.

Please point out the exemption that states otherwise??
www.healthcare.gov...

The corporation has had their right protected.. The people have not. And I do believe that the laws they used in court indicated that some corporations should have the SAME protections as is granted to the people!

oh and the administration has made another revision to the monster law so women will still have coverage.
politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...
Who pays for this coverage isn't detailed but I got a feeling that it will be we, THE REAL PEOPLE!!

seems to me that people's religious rights were trampled over on behalf of big business since they now get to bare the burden that the businesses were spared from having to shoulder...

THANK YOU!!
I have tried to inform mojom in multiple threads she does not understand the claims she is superimposing onto the definitions of person. It changes its definition from statute to statute. It has to be defined by the statute itself using the definition provided. There is no over riding one definition fits all for "person". The laws redefine it for each statute. The op cannot even begin to understand her own legal fiction as being a corporation. She thinks only corporations are ficticious entities when her own legal documents declare a legal fiction that needs her representation to make them real. Same as any other corporation. It all comes down to how it is defined for each statute addressed. There is no "catch-all" phrase that magicly unwinds it all for simple coffee table discussion. Each law has to be broken down and the definition of "person" defined from within it, not from outside.
I have used Justice Roberts opinion given for aca as a prime example. In it he uses the term "person" with it having at least 3 different meanings where the statute he references hides their meaning.

but these threads want to help hide all this by force feeding definitions to laws that distort all semblence of understanding. So it becomes a partisan bitchfest pretending to claim an understanding of law by declaring a simple definition in place of real due diligence and honest dialoguea reply to: WhatAreThey

Man are you ever butt hurt. He declared he had a new understanding of it from the forums. He used that info.

you dont like people who contradict you it seems. Your whole thread is a partisan bitch fest and 90% of the posts are off topic. And now you get someone discussing it ON TOPIC and you get all flustered and confused and go after the posters "person". Not his legal fiction, or user id, but you attack his personal being.

you fail!!!
a reply to: mOjOm

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WhatAreThey

Side 2, has people that believe in freedom without government intervention in things so small as "birth control".

You may not realize it, but you are in fact, a government and statist sycophant bent on controlling the will of free people to further your liberal welfare state attitude where people should pay for you.

For an attorney one might think that you might understand what the issue is here. This thread isn't about free contraception, it's about this Court ruling that corporations can have sincerely held religious beliefs. That may be how some Supreme Court Justices interpret "We The People", but many of us people disagree with corporation having such a status.

And when did having a health insurance policy through your employer equal a "welfare state"? Conflate an issue much? Oh right, defense lawyer, got it.

if that be true, you are in the wrong thread.
this thread is about defining legal person. I am not sure if you have addressed the topic yet in all your posts.
I can only tell you are liberal by reading the reasons why you want things defined to your way of thinking. But I have no clue if you are even interested in the actual legal aspects of these rulings.
I suggest you start with trying to understand the actual definition of "person".

I know it is a difficult topic. But shouldnt your rants be in the political mud pit forum?

a reply to: manna2

if that be true, you are in the wrong thread.
this thread is about defining legal person. I am not sure if you have addressed the topic yet in all your posts.

That's right, this thread is about the Hobby Lobby "personhood" ruling; A landmark decision that declared that Hobby Lobby is entitled to 1st Amendment rights and now may present it's case against the contraception mandate as an person with sincerely held religious beliefs.

This is what I said:

it's about this Court ruling that corporations can have sincerely held religious beliefs. That may be how some Supreme Court Justices interpret "We The People", but many of us people disagree with corporation having such a status.

I have every right to disagree with the justices conclusion about corporations having religious beliefs. I don't believe that the framers of the 1st Amendment meant for corporations to assert their owner's personally held beliefs over and above their employees.

Thats not stated in the opinions. You quoted yourself and made a personal opinion. Who the hell is "we, the people"?a reply to: windword

originally posted by: manna2

Thats not stated in the opinions.

What's not stated in what opinions?

You quoted yourself and made a personal opinion.

I quoted myself to clear myself from your accusation of being off topic.

Who the hell is "we, the people"?

You tell me.

I believe this ruling, in general, to be wrong, and unconstitutional. I think that the activists justices in this case made a treasonous decision, and "We The People" need to fight to nullify it.