Hobby Lobby May Close All 500+ Stores in 41 States

bbracken677

My reply (wrong bucko) was relating to a business's right of religious freedom, or the 1st amendment rights. A recent decision by the Supreme Court (the federal one) grants corporations and unions the same rights as those of an individual.

Absolutely inaccurate.

Here is the holding of Citizens United (Source):

Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast.

Citizens did not grant anything to anybody.

The judgement answered the question "what is protected speech under the First Amendment" not "whose speech is protected under the First Amendment."

These are simple facts available to anyone, easily.

If SCOTUS rules that corporations are legally equivalent to their owners (thus, having "freedoms") a fundamental concept of corporate law ("the corporate veil") will be shredded.

Bone75

Stormdancer777
Hey, CVS is going to quit carrying cigarettes, what do you guys think?

Oh how dare them infringe upon my right to do what I want with my body. Federal law says that cigarettes are legal, and CVS is just right down the street. So why should I be forced to drive another half a mile simply because they don't agree with my lifestyle? Where's a good mandate when you need one?
*stomps foot*

Personally (I appreciate your /sarcasm) I think that it is CVS's choice whether to carry any product. Consumers can request that specific products be carried. They can boycott the business, as is their right, until a specific product is carried. But the bottom line is: It is the business's choice....as it should be. Too many people think the govt should step in and make someone else comply with their wishes and do not understand how that violates the hell out of liberty.

No govt intervention is needed nor warranted.

You are correct in your statement regarding it is my right to smoke if I do so choose to. It is not my right to impinge my smoke on others if they do not wish it.

After all...it is a woman's right to abort another human being since it is her body, no? The only thing I dont quite get about that ...well maybe not the only thing...is what about dad's rights? Seems that the father should have some kind of say, barring health reasons and rape.

reply to post by bbracken677


OK can we look at this another way then.

The insurance company is mandated to cover BC so in affect that is their service as a package.

Hobby Lobby is mandated to buy insurance so in affect they are trying to force another company to change their offered service/product.

Are there ins packages available at this time that are set up the way they want? I am not sure on that.

Gryphon66

bbracken677

My reply (wrong bucko) was relating to a business's right of religious freedom, or the 1st amendment rights. A recent decision by the Supreme Court (the federal one) grants corporations and unions the same rights as those of an individual.

Absolutely inaccurate.

Here is the holding of Citizens United (Source):

Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast.

Citizens did not grant anything to anybody.

The judgement answered the question "what is protected speech under the First Amendment" not "whose speech is protected under the First Amendment."

These are simple facts available to anyone, easily.

If SCOTUS rules that corporations are legally equivalent to their owners (thus, having "freedoms") a fundamental concept of corporate law ("the corporate veil") will be shredded.

edit on 16Wed, 05 Feb 2014 16:17:21 -060014p042014266 by Gryphon66 because: Objectified

Apparently simple facts that you failed to research as there is much available regarding the recent Supremes ruling.

money.howstuffworks.com... (a rather lengthy article including historical examples dating back to Roman times...pretty decent read)

www.sourcewatch.org...:Corporate_Rights

www.theatlantic.com...

more to the point:

www.slate.com...

There is a whole slew of stuff out there, and if you like dry reading even a couple of legal treatises dealing with the potential ramifications of the ruling.

reply to post by bbracken677


I am aware of the media hype. I had thought it would be easy to make a rational distinction between judicial process and tabloidism.

All you have done is list the equivalent of a number of Chinese boxes and say "Look these prove I'm right."

They do not. Argue for yourself.

Please point to the section of the Citizen's ruling that says "corporations are people too" and I will gladly withdraw my comments.

Grimpachi
reply to post by bbracken677

 

OK can we look at this another way then.

The insurance company is mandated to cover BC so in affect that is their service as a package.

Hobby Lobby is mandated to buy insurance so in affect they are trying to force another company to change their offered service/product.

Are there ins packages available at this time that are set up the way they want? I am not sure on that.

edit on 5-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

No...I am 59, my wife is ... umm...29, yeah that's it! Anyway, we HAVE to pay for coverage for a pregnancy that is impossible (her plumbing of that nature is missing) ... we have no choice. There are a few other tidbits like that.

Bottom line, they want everyone to pay for all kinds of crap they dont need so that we will provide coverage, in a sense, for those who cannot afford coverage. Same old story. Take from me, to give to ... whomever.

Gryphon66
reply to post by bbracken677

 

I am aware of the media hype. I had thought it would be easy to make a rational distinction between judicial process and tabloidism.

All you have done is list the equivalent of a number of Chinese boxes and say "Look these prove I'm right."

They do not. Argue for yourself.

Please point to the section of the Citizen's ruling that says "corporations are people too" and I will gladly withdraw my comments.

The same way that one line in the constitution (congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion) can be flipped on it's head to be interpreted as separation of church and state. It is what the ruling implies, and opens the door to parallels. The following should make it abundantly clear to anyone with a brain that this is NOT just media hype. Read, and read between the lines as well. There are precedents being set, and have been set.

Here is a quote from blogs.findlaw.com...

In late June, the Tenth Circuit found that for-profit corporations have standing to challenge the regulation, pursuant to the Free Exercise Clause, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the corporate personhood as espoused in Citizens United v. FEC, and the preservation of one's Free Exercise rights when incorporating for profit, as held in United States v. Lee. The Tenth Circuit also reversed the district court's denial of an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the ACA birth control mandate and remanded the case for reconsideration. That reconsideration came on Friday, when the district court issued an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the ACA and its hefty penalties. The court acknowledged the importance of the government's interest in ensuring that all forms of contraception are available to employees, yet noted that most, ACA or not, are already available to them, unlike employees that work for entities exempted under the ACA's terms (which are provided with none). That's a wordy, legal way of pointing out that even without the morning after pill, the health plans provide other options. The government's interest is essentially limited to one form of birth control. Meanwhile, Hobby Lobby has its religious interests and millions of dollars in fines.

reply to post by bbracken677


Friend, I have a brain. I do not appreciate your statement that because I disagree with your inaccurate statements that I am somehow "brainless." That is a breach of etiquette and quite bad manners, not to mention, a fallacious argument.

Again, you are merely gesturing vaguely at tertiary and weaker sources to both make and prove your argument ... which to me is a tactic whereby you throw a wall of words at a question and say "There, that' proves it." I dispute that you are saying or are proving anything of substance or merit.

Here is a link to the source of our contention (CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION.)

Surely you've read through it, since you're making claims about it, yes? Just quote the section which states "The Court finds that corporations are people too" and I will withdraw my comments.

If not, have the honor and decency to state that you are mistaken in your assertion and move on.

reply to post by bbracken677


So that is how the insurance plans are packaged with those things included.


Just like buying a car with ABS. It is what it is take it or leave it the ABS is mandated to the company building it.

You may need or have to buy a car to keep yourself going.

So in affect Hobby Lobby is trying to force another company to build their plan/car/product. Even though they have to purchase a plan/product to keep themselves going.

Who is trying to dictate to a company now?

The idea that health insurance plans should only cover those areas that a particular individual needs is utterly spurious. That's not the way health insurance has ever worked. You buy a plan and you use what you need. What if you NEVER need it? Well, then, in hindsight you've wasted your money. Sadly, most of us cannot predict the future.

Buying into an insurance plan does not equate to subsidizing health costs of the other members; that's ludicrous.

You buy a plan. It covers what it covers. You use it if you need it. If you don't need it, hoorah!, you're in good health.

Here, let me try to help:

Your best argument is found in the first sentence of 2 (c) of Citizen's:

(b) The Court has recognized that the First Amendment applies
to corporations, e.g., First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S.
765, 778, n. 14, and extended this protection to the context of political
speech, see, e.g., NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 428–429.

Now, taken out of context of the entire decision, you could make your argument, and you would be incorrect. Note the "e.g" there ... that tells us that the first phrase is exemplified by or limited by Bellotti's decision.

That is found here: First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti III.

The First Amendment, in particular, serves significant societal interests. The proper question therefore is not whether corporations "have" First Amendment rights and, if so, whether they are coextensive with those of natural persons. Instead, the question must be whether § 8 abridges expression that the First Amendment was meant to protect. We hold that it does.

The First Amendment applies to corporations in Citizen's because the First Amendment forbids governmental restriction of speech.

The comment of SCOTUS either in Citizen's or Bellotti (or anywhere else do date) does not make Corporations equivalent to people.

Corporations are NOT citizens. They are entities of legal artifice.

Gryphon66
The idea that health insurance plans should only cover those areas that a particular individual needs is utterly spurious. That's not the way health insurance has ever worked. You buy a plan and you use what you need. What if you NEVER need it? Well, then, in hindsight you've wasted your money. Sadly, most of us cannot predict the future.

Buying into an insurance plan does not equate to subsidizing health costs of the other members; that's ludicrous.

You buy a plan. It covers what it covers. You use it if you need it. If you don't need it, hoorah!, you're in good health.

That's not true at all. First of all, health insurance started out as protection against potentially catastrophic and unexpected issues. It was not intended initially to cover routine healthcare. Like care insurance, you bought it in case you had a crash, not to cover every oil change.

The more things you want covered by insurance, the more expensive the policy. That is how it always worked. Often, young people who were healthy and did not require routine medications would only take out a very cheap catastrophic policy that covered unexpected major issues like a broken leg or an appendicitis but they paid for routine things, like birth control out of pocket. This made the policy very, very inexpensive and affordable and they didn't pay for coverage they didn't need.

The current mandates ARE subsidizing other people's health care...that's the WHOLE point of the ACA. It is not insurance anymore but healthcare. You no longer can stratify your costs my ameliorating your risks or lifestyle, everyone must have the same coverage whether they need it or want.

Grimpachi
reply to post by bbracken677

 

So that is how the insurance plans are packaged with those things included.


Just like buying a car with ABS. It is what it is take it or leave it the ABS is mandated to the company building it.

You may need or have to buy a car to keep yourself going.

So in affect Hobby Lobby is trying to force another company to build their plan/car/product. Even though they have to purchase a plan/product to keep themselves going.

Who is trying to dictate to a company now?

edit on 5-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

My god, what convoluted reasoning. HL had a plan that they liked. They contracted for said plan with the insurance company. It was not until the nanny statists in government mandated what the plan contains to both HL and the insurance company what the plan would look like that this came about. All of the dictation being done in this situation is from the government--you know, that same wonderful government that gave us the Patriot act and NSA surveillance?

reply to post by grey580


Well they absolutely have the right to close their doors rather than be forced to provide this type of contraception. Everyone that works for them knows the score before they work there. As does anyone who shops there.

As for the Jewish comment that just shows how seriously naive you are. This happens everyday across every sub culture in America. Seriously, how often do you go to Chinese restaurant and see anyone of another culture working there. This also holds true across other areas of business.

Christians hire other Christians, Mormons other Mormons, etc etc. You don't hire a white nerd to sell African American line of shoes or clothes or a long haired pierced rock an roller to sell violins etc. This happens everyday.

No the government does not have the authority to make a Christian company pay for and provide insurance that in their view provides abortion by pill. They are up front about their morals to every potential employee. You do not have to work for them and in fact very few non christian people choose to work for them because you are expected to uphold certain moral standards.

This is no different than the nfl or baseball's morality clause etc.

The Bot

Grimpachi
reply to post by bbracken677

 

So that is how the insurance plans are packaged with those things included.


Just like buying a car with ABS. It is what it is take it or leave it the ABS is mandated to the company building it.

You may need or have to buy a car to keep yourself going.

So in affect Hobby Lobby is trying to force another company to build their plan/car/product. Even though they have to purchase a plan/product to keep themselves going.

Who is trying to dictate to a company now?

edit on 5-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

This might be the first time I have disagreed with you, Grimpachi. For that, my apologies.

But it isn't a comparison that you are doing there, because they are so disparate that there is nothing to compare.

ABS saves lives. Birth control pills do not. HOWEVER, condoms do. And using a condom negates the need for birth control and morning after pills 99% of the time, while simultaneously preventing the spread of disease.

It would seem that if we use your comparison, ACA should be mandating the use of condoms during sex instead of birth control. Since birth control isn't really a life saving medication.

It goes back to the primary argument: you are now being mandated to buy a product. You are being taxed, essentially.

Before, insurance was akin to gambling. sometimes you struck it big by being covered, sometimes you paid forever never needing it. Now, the only gamble is for the consumer. The house will always win.

reply to post by Gryphon66


Ok...granted I can see how you can take that. The statement was a general one, and not directed (at least in intent) towards you specifically. If I had intended it as a personal attack I would have said "half a brain" lol but we are splitting hairs, or rather brains.
I would direct you to a previous post where I remarked like I liked and or enjoyed our discussion/debate. My apologies for the poor communication.

I dont think you read what I posted, nor explored the links. Otherwise, I believe you would see what I was getting at.

The fact that the 10th circuit ruled as it did is all the argument I need to make regarding the implications of the Supreme's ruling. The fact that the Hobby Lobby challenge made it, or has been remanded, to the Supreme Court authenticates what I said. Were it not the case, Hobby's case would have been tossed at the first court level.

Obviously there is merit enough in the argument to be considered by the Supreme Court. How they will rule is anybody's guess, but I would offer my opinion that there is an excellent chance that the Supremes will rule in favor of Hobby. No guarantees, just an excellent chance. To rule otherwise runs counter to the spirit of their previous ruling. Normally you do not see such ruling changes until there is, at least, a change in the makeup of the court.

With this court though...they have established an unpredictability that makes it harder to foresee an outcome. I would have bet that the Affordable Care Mandate (forcing people to purchase health insurance) would have been found unconstitutional. It is expressly prohibited by the Constitution. The perception of the mandate as being a tax is both bizarre and unexpected. Bottom line that anyone can see is we are not being taxed...we are being forced to purchase a product (service). I cant help but feel that there was some coercion going on there somewhere....

reply to post by bbracken677


i believe Roberts was coerced. Obama has not been shy about letting the IRS and NSA loose on people not toeing the line.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Your post is factually incorrect on multiple accounts.

Massachusetts Health Insurance of Boston offered early group policies with a relatively comprehensive list of benefits as early as 1847. Individual "health" plans became available in the US during the Civil War.(Source - History of Health Insurance)
(Source 2) (Source 3)

There are different kinds of health insurance plans with different levels of coverage available, certainly. This does not mean that each plan goes up with each and every choice of what is to be covered, as if one were ordering from a menu. There is always a scope of coverage that is basic to a given plan, other coverages are additional, and that is what is under contention in this discussion. (Source - How Health Insurance Works)

The ACA does provide means for coverage to be extended to as many people as possible. I don't mind going on record as saying that I think it does a monstrously poor job of doing so. Bring the troops home from the unconstitutional wars around the world, cash out the military-industrial complex, and use those trillion$ to offer comprehensive single payer insurance to every American citizen from the cradle to the grave.

NO implications of the ACA means that by purchasing an insurance plan from whatever source, an individual is personally subsidizing anyone else's health care costs.

That's merely specious.

reply to post by NavyDoc


I think you are blinded by something and not seeing the parallel.

ABS is mandated to the company end product of cars.


BC is mandated to the end product from Health ins companies.

They are both products both have been told a certain thing must be done in order to be sold.



Hobby lobby does not want that end product as sold. They don't want ABS/BC as part of that product.

It is what it is the companies they want to buy from are not BK where they get it their way.

They can suck it up and drive on or close their doors and move along.

Maybe they should have a little faith in their employees to not use birth control after all this is about their faith. Is it really that weak?

Corporations are NOT citizens. They are entities of legal artifice.

I don't really need your help, my previous post said it all.

Apparently you feel that your interpretation is superior to those with law degrees, with those who have spent years interpreting law as well as interpreting and discussing cases ruled on by the Supreme Court.

If that is the case, then there is nothing I can say that will impact your reasoning one iota.

It is pretty much a unanimous interpretation (not to mention the historical aspect, dating back to the Roman era) that the implications of that ruling are that corporate entities have the same rights as guaranteed to individuals by the constitution. The concept of corporate personhood is not a recent development. The fact that this case has been presented to the Supremes is all the proof I need. Seems extremely simple to me.

Personally...I do not agree with the concept of "corporate personhood". I think it opens the door for all kinds of...issues...and I am sure the Supremes will make note of my opinion lol

I mean, seriously, the little guy has very little going for him now when you consider corporate entities and govt institutions as it is...