30 Jun 14
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarDealing with you is a waste of time. I haven't "changed the subject"; my response is directly on point. Read the decision yourself; the first sentence clearly states the SCOTUS is relying only on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and limiting the ruling to "closely held corporations" (which the IRS defines as one where 5 or less persons own a majority of the corporation's stock). The sweeping Constitutional ruling that you are celebrating exists only in your mind.
You are grasping for straws. Perhaps you can should go back and read what I said and respond to what I said. Quit trying to change the subject.
The subject is a person who wants to open a business to make money.
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeYep and I'm glad that the Supreme Court allows some people religious freedom afforded to all by the US Constitution.
Here is an entertaining thread:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=157262&page=&page=1
If we'd just get away from the Nanny State and back to a country where people are allowed to live out their lives as they see fit instead of having things forced on them we'd avoid all the stuff.
But no, the leftists are on a roll and want to enslave us all. By enslave I mean take our money to fund their wishes.
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeWell it's certainly more "entertaining" than this one.😛
Here is an entertaining thread:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=157262&page=&page=1
Most of that thread was based on the premise that the Hobby Lobby case would be decided on 1st Amendment grounds; it was not. I think the majority's reading of the RFRA to include any for profit corporations is untenable given that the statute was only a corrective response to a prior SCOTUS decision (Smith) that meant to restore a test previously used i.e. one that contained a "least restrictive means" test. But as Ginsburg correctly points out:
There is in that case law no support for the notion that free exercise rights pertain to for-profit corporations.
Until this litigation, no decision of this Court recognized a for-profit corporation's qualification for a religious exemption from a generally applicable law
p. 14 of Justice Ginsburg's dissent
And nowhere in the legislative history of the RFRA is there a single word about extending its protections to for-profit corporations.
EDIT: Here's another link for the decision that allows copy and pastes:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/231968582/Burwell-v-Hobby-Lobby
Originally posted by EladarTrue enough; millions of women will be potentially deprived of contraceptive services because of this ruling.
According to wiki, closely held corporations employ 6.2 million people and account for 1.8 trillion in revenue in the US. That was in 2008 and only takes into account the 441 largest closely held corporations.
The Forbes article those figures are from is here: http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/03/largest-private-companies-biz-privates08-cx_sr_1103private_land.html
Interesting that the 2nd largest private company is our old friend "Koch Industries".
02 Jul 14
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeHere is a link to the thread: Thread 157262
Here is an entertaining thread:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=157262&page=&page=1
use the [ threadid ] tag to do this.
02 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat would stop them from buying the insurance on their own?
True enough; millions of women will be potentially deprived of contraceptive services because of this ruling.
The Forbes article those figures are from is here: http://www.forbes.com/2008/11/03/largest-private-companies-biz-privates08-cx_sr_1103private_land.html
Interesting that the 2nd largest private company is our old friend "Koch Industries".
Or do you think there is a Constitutional right to having an abortion?
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/01/obamacares-many-loopholes-forcing-individuals-and-taxpayers-to-fund-elective-abortion-coverage
02 Jul 14
Originally posted by EladarWith the way a modern economy is interconnected, as long as you're a productive member of society, you're funding everything that requires funding. So if you don't want to fund abortion, stop working (or become a marketing manager).
What would stop them from buying the insurance on their own?
Or do you think there is a Constitutional right to having an abortion?
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/01/obamacares-many-loopholes-forcing-individuals-and-taxpayers-to-fund-elective-abortion-coverage
02 Jul 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI understand that's how Communists think.
With the way a modern economy is interconnected, as long as you're a productive member of society, you're funding everything that requires funding. So if you don't want to fund abortion, stop working (or become a marketing manager).