04 Jul 14
Is it a "substantial burden" on Hobby Lobby if its employees go to a hospital that performs abortions for standard care?
Would it be a "substantial burden" to a Hobby Lobby employee who pays part of the insurance premium and has the same religious beliefs as the owners if one of their fellow employees got an IUD under the plan?
04 Jul 14
Originally posted by no1marauderI thought you were an expert in business law. You should at least be able to tell us what Hobby Lobby is if it is not incorporated.
It's your hypothetical; you tell me.
I'm not going to keep responding to your posts if you keep playing this game; it's a complete waste of time.
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeIt could be any number of things. Is this about Hobby Lobby or you trying with your usual sense of desperation to try and "prove" that you know more about law than I do? 😀
I thought you were an expert in business law. You should at least be able to tell us what Hobby Lobby is if it is not incorporated.
Try to stay on the subject and stop wasting everybody's time.
05 Jul 14
1 edit
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeGFY. You've given no information to make it possible for anyone to answer the question.
Go on...
And I am on subject. I will explain later after you answer my question.
Edit: Or you can admit that you do not know the answer and we can move on to relevance now.
05 Jul 14
Originally posted by no1marauderSo you are saying that we need to get rid of corporations or accept the communist idea that if you incorporate that you are no longer a private business but a government type entity?
You do realize that the entire idea of a "corporation" came from the "traditional European government dominated society", don't you?
05 Jul 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraReally?
Hobby Lobby's usage of currency already places the same burden on them.
Because the government has outlawed the use of the gold standard and at one time outlawed even having gold so that it could take control of the currency we are now bound to the government if we use money?
What a sick point of view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Reserve_Act
05 Jul 14
Originally posted by EladarYou're totally missing the point, as usual. Perhaps you could try reading my previous post explaining the interconnectivity of trade implied by the usage of currency (regardless of what it is based on).
Really?
Because the government has outlawed the use of the gold standard and at one time outlawed even having gold so that it could take control of the currency we are now bound to the government if we use money?
What a sick point of view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_Reserve_Act
05 Jul 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou naturally think that since people must trade something the government has the right to control people with it.
You're totally missing the point, as usual. Perhaps you could try reading my previous post explaining the interconnectivity of trade implied by the usage of currency (regardless of what it is based on).
05 Jul 14
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe Constitution grants responsibility of the central government to coin money (art1.sec.8). The existence of specific powers tends to argue against broad powers, otherwise why the specificity?
You're totally missing the point, as usual. Perhaps you could try reading my previous post explaining the interconnectivity of trade implied by the usage of currency (regardless of what it is based on).