Hobby Lobby May Close All 500+ Stores in 41 States

bigfatfurrytexan

bbracken677
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

A recent Supreme Court decision upheld 1st Amendment rights for corporations, so whether a privately owned company is entitled to those same rights is open for debate and the Supremes, having established a precedent will have to decide.

The concept of corporate personhood is not a new concept by any means.

The right to free speech is not the same as religious freedom. A corporation has a right to free speech...sure. That speech will be delivered by a person, but all that aside....

...are you extrapolating the first amendment protection for corporations (which is really only meant to allow them to donate tons of cash for political reasons, as money = speech) into full protections under the Bill of Rights? So the military wouldn't be able to take over a football stadium in a national emergency (such as Katrina)? Because of 4th amendment rights?

Yeah, thats pretty dumb. LOL

Dumb, given that the National Guard does have that right?

Dumb given that the implications of the decision can lead to those kinds of protections? Dumb because part of the 1st amendment guarantees religious freedom? Dumb because the Supremes will likely be making a decision regarding said rights?

Doesn't seem that dumb to me. The fact that the case has passed the requisite courts to reach the Supreme Court grants it credence. Not saying they will rule that way, but the precedent, in a sense, has been set by the same court that will be making the decision.

What I do find dumb, on the other hand, is that corporations would be granted any 1st amendment rights at all, but then I am not a member of the Supremes.

bbracken677

What I do find dumb, on the other hand, is that corporations would be granted any 1st amendment rights at all, but then I am not a member of the Supremes.

on this we agree completely.

on a related note, money is not equal to speech. Those two concepts go hand in hand.

bigfatfurrytexan

bbracken677

What I do find dumb, on the other hand, is that corporations would be granted any 1st amendment rights at all, but then I am not a member of the Supremes.

on this we agree completely.

on a related note, money is not equal to speech. Those two concepts go hand in hand.

While I would agree, it would seem that the Supremes think differently. In a sense, I understand their decision, I just do not, personally, agree that should apply to corporations. I think that they already have a louder voice than we do with regards to hired lobbyists and all. I would love to see the whole concept of professional lobbyists and all that goes with it be outlawed. Too much opportunity for fraud and graft, IMO. But we have to depend on the wolves to protect the chicken coop...not gonna happen.

reply to post by bbracken677

While I would agree, it would seem that the Supremes think differently.

The "Supremes", although criticized for their ruling in the Citizen's United case, really had no choice. I think it was Roberts who said that if "you don't like the ruling, change the law"!

The laws of the United States hold that a legal entity (like a corporation or non-profit organization) shall be treated under the law as a person except when otherwise noted. This rule of construction is specified in 1 U.S.C. §1 (United States Code),[14] which states:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise--
the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
en.wikipedia.org...

It was an Act of Congress that created the federal statute, declaring that corporations are people. Not the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court merely upheld the "Act of Congress".

bbracken677

bigfatfurrytexan

bbracken677

What I do find dumb, on the other hand, is that corporations would be granted any 1st amendment rights at all, but then I am not a member of the Supremes.

on this we agree completely.

on a related note, money is not equal to speech. Those two concepts go hand in hand.

While I would agree, it would seem that the Supremes think differently. In a sense, I understand their decision, I just do not, personally, agree that should apply to corporations. I think that they already have a louder voice than we do with regards to hired lobbyists and all. I would love to see the whole concept of professional lobbyists and all that goes with it be outlawed. Too much opportunity for fraud and graft, IMO. But we have to depend on the wolves to protect the chicken coop...not gonna happen.

I could care less what the supreme court thinks. Their opinion may rule the law, but it doesn't rule my opinion. Nor does it trump it.

reply to post by windword


I am not entirely certain that they shouldn't have struck it down and sent it back for revision.

bigfatfurrytexan

bbracken677

bigfatfurrytexan

bbracken677

What I do find dumb, on the other hand, is that corporations would be granted any 1st amendment rights at all, but then I am not a member of the Supremes.

on this we agree completely.

on a related note, money is not equal to speech. Those two concepts go hand in hand.

While I would agree, it would seem that the Supremes think differently. In a sense, I understand their decision, I just do not, personally, agree that should apply to corporations. I think that they already have a louder voice than we do with regards to hired lobbyists and all. I would love to see the whole concept of professional lobbyists and all that goes with it be outlawed. Too much opportunity for fraud and graft, IMO. But we have to depend on the wolves to protect the chicken coop...not gonna happen.

I could care less what the supreme court thinks. Their opinion may rule the law, but it doesn't rule my opinion. Nor does it trump it.

I understand what you say, but in the real world your opinion matters not when compared to the opinion of the Court. Might as well flail away at windmills.

windword
reply to post by bbracken677

 

While I would agree, it would seem that the Supremes think differently.

The "Supremes", although criticized for their ruling in the Citizen's United case, really had no choice. I think it was Roberts who said that if "you don't like the ruling, change the law"!

The laws of the United States hold that a legal entity (like a corporation or non-profit organization) shall be treated under the law as a person except when otherwise noted. This rule of construction is specified in 1 U.S.C. §1 (United States Code),[14] which states:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise--
the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
en.wikipedia.org...

It was an Act of Congress that created the federal statute, declaring that corporations are people. Not the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court merely upheld the "Act of Congress".

edit on 10-2-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)

Indeed....well stated and thanks for the post.

reply to post by bbracken677


I live pretty far out of civilization. Court decisions don't have a lot of impact in areas where the law barely reaches.

Hobby Lobby refuses to provide birth control coverage, but if you're a person who works at a Hobby Lobby you probably don't need it.

I would say this is very telling about the case for corporate personhood. The National Federation of Independent Business—a group that prides itself on being “the voice for small businesses in the nation’s courts”—have chosen not to participate in the Hobby Lobby appeal also the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - the most powerful and successful voice on behalf of corporations before the Supreme Court has remained on the sidelines in the case as well. This is one constitutional right that corporate America cannot and will not defend. The right to the free exercise of religion has never been a right that secular, for-profit corporations claimed to possess.

reply to post by Grimpachi


You are absolutely right.

ACA is wrong on other grounds unrelated to religion.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I am not arguing with you about that. I think it is screwed up for many reasons.

I am hoping it is simply a faze to get to something like what Canadians enjoy. It is like they tried to reinvent the wheel with the ACA to make the insurance companies happy. Supposedly it worked for Romney in his state but I still don't like it.