but back to topic, with all the people attacking HL and saying they dont have the right to stand up for their beliefs as a company, i wonder how those same people feel about Target standing up for theirs in the related topic.. i bet its ok in that case... damned hypocrites.
Of course i reserve the right to take my business or 'listening' elsewhere, and call them out for it, but they still get the right to act like an ass if they like.
What I don't understand is the necessity that some feel to shut these businesses down to satisfy their outrage. Don't shop there. If the outrage is truly as widespread as they want it to be, eventually no one will shop there and the business will close. If you don't like the plot of a controversial movie, don't shell out $7.50 just to get your blood boiling. If you don't like a television program, don't watch it just to sit there and blow a gasket. Why torture yourself? Despite what your mommy told you, you're not important enough to stop a business from operating because you think they're wrong.
This entire debacle of a law should never have been enacted, so from here on out it is about chopping this monster down. This SCOTUS ruling was long overdue and the next step should be a SCOTUS ruling on obamas executive orders.
So far, when it comes to President Obama and the SCOTUS, I think he's about 0 for 13 now. I don't think that will change when other things come in front of him. He's setting himself up again with the threats of EO's on immigration and public infrastructure. Yes, GWB did sign more EO's than Obama. But we need to look at what those were for. Obama seems to like to "EO" the big stuff. Waiting for the one where he addresses the 2nd amendment with an EO.
Should should should. Lots of things should be or should not be, but all of that hinges on a society having the same basic values. Since we don't, people like Barack Obama get elected, this law happens, this case happens, we move farther and farther away from being a civilized, thoughtful people.
So far, when it comes to President Obama and the SCOTUS, I think he's about 0 for 13 now. I don't think that will change when other things come in front of him. He's setting himself up again with the threats of EO's on immigration and public infrastructure. Yes, GWB did sign more EO's than Obama. But we need to look at what those were for. Obama seems to like to "EO" the big stuff. Waiting for the one where he addresses the 2nd amendment with an EO.
I dont think he cares as long as the overall agenda keeps moving forward. For what its worth, his side of the isle is in this for the long haul, and are able to plan ahead decades down the road, while the other side cant seem to get their act together beyond fighting today's fires.
Say what you will, but it is pretty clear to me... HL pays a company for their merchandise. HL pays a company for their insurance. In both cases once the money is handed over, the transaction is complete. What happens after that money is given is no longer a concern with HL owners.
So, why is it that HL believes they have the right to say what type of services the insurance companies offer, or how they use their money? That same money that is paid into insurance companies is used to fund abortions and what not... it is pool of money. You know that, I know that, yet HL doesn't? BS! They are just ignoring that fact, because it doesn't support their case.
So, HL owners are willing to turn a blind eye to how the merchandise money is spent (employees of the suppliers, and to those who gives them money for their merchandise. Yet, they hide behind their religion... hmmm... yeah. Oh wait.. it comes back to money.... the all mighty dollar.
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe:
But they have also repeatedly stated that they apply those behavior standards TO THEMSELVES. They do not impose them on others.
They are gracious and kind to others. They do business with others. They respect the individual people's rights to make their own decisions, and their own behaviors.
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe:
It was only when the government violated the constitution and tried to force THEM to violate their own standards, that they stood up.
The corporation is paying for insurance. And I guess you are ok with a corporation having the same rights as an individual. When that corporation shows up in church, we can talk, until then, it is a business and does not have the same rights under our Constitution.
I will ask you the same thing... "What is so complex about that to distinguish? Are you trying to not see it?"
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe:
They tried so hard to be good citizens and neighbors that they were already providing the birth control measures that the ACA demanded, before there was and ACA.
Really, you know the owners personally? They are "good citizens"? No, the business is not a "good citizen". The "good citizen" business takes cheaply make products, from a country where the working and living standards are horrible, and they sell it here in the US. If the owners of HL were interested in being a "good citizen", why are they not buying products made in the US, or buying from a location that treats their employees better? Eh, sorry, you can believe what you want, but their actions show that they are just another business, making money off of cheap labor.
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe: EXCEPT for those they believe causes abortions. That crossed their standard line. But because you and Obama, and people like you don't believe in individual freedoms afforded by the constitution, and can't abide that anyone would try to avail of themselves of those rights, even though they are explicitly spelled out, and believe in compelling people to violate their religious beliefs by threat of government, they had to stand up.
You and people like you are wrong, but your emotions are getting the best of you. I believe in individual freedoms. I don't believe a corporation has the same rights as an individual. A corporation is immortal. A corporation does not have a religion, a corporation's soul can not be saved.
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe: The strict limitation of privately held family businesses exempts that.
It is not a "family business"... it is a corporation....
quote
Originally posted by frontal lobe: Oh, but jackispyder will have NONE of this individual constitutionally given rights business. No way. Individual freedoms. Individual responsibilities. Live with others who disagree and live and let live. Like Hobby Lobby is trying to do. Remember those days, jackispyder? Just not good enough for you, is it?
If you are going to call me out, at least spell my username correctly... jaskispyder. It is even in the [quote] tag.
BTW, No, individual rights/freedoms should not be extended to corporations. "We the people...", not, "We the corporation..." But I think this is more about Obama, than religion (for you).
What I don't understand is the necessity that some feel to shut these businesses down to satisfy their outrage. Don't shop there. If the outrage is truly as widespread as they want it to be, eventually no one will shop there and the business will close. If you don't like the plot of a controversial movie, don't shell out $7.50 just to get your blood boiling. If you don't like a television program, don't watch it just to sit there and blow a gasket. Why torture yourself? Despite what your mommy told you, you're not important enough to stop a business from operating because you think they're wrong.
They've turned everything into discrimination in their minds. Convincing themselves its a wrong that needs to be righted. That they will be doing a good deed, and rah rah rah.
Has anyone thought of asking the employees of Hobby Lobby what they think of all of this? Or is this none of their concern? If the employees are okay with this decision, why should it really matter to anyone else? Or is it everyone else's job to speak for those people? From neither side of this argument have I heard what the opinion of the HL employees happens to be. They're the ones who will be feeling the immediate effects of this decision. I think it would be an important bit of information to hear from them.
So, HL owners are willing to turn a blind eye to how the merchandise money is spent (employees of the suppliers, and to those who gives them money for their merchandise. Yet, they hide behind their religion... hmmm... yeah. Oh wait.. it comes back to money.... the all mighty dollar.
.
So my other post was completely lost on you? What would you say people do, not have a business, not pay taxes?
Originally posted by jaskispyder: You and people like you are wrong, but your emotions are getting the best of you. I believe in individual freedoms. I don't believe a corporation has the same rights as an individual. A corporation is immortal. A corporation does not have a religion, a corporation's soul can not be saved.
It is not a "family business"... it is a corporation.... .
Nobody anwered my 1st page question:
quote
Originally posted by 2.5: Is it written somewhere that once a company becomes incorporated the founder loses control of how they wish to run it? For one are they forced to provide health insurance at all?
I'd love any comments about that. I'm not a business major.
So my other post was completely lost on you? What would you say people do, not have a business, not pay taxes?
People can choose to have a CORPORATION,or not and if they have a corporation, they must follow the laws which allow that corporation to operate. Seems clear to me.
I am not sure about your "taxes" comment, maybe you can explain what you are asking.
I am not sure about your "taxes" comment, maybe you can explain what you are asking.
I already did when we talked about this earlier. ?????
quote
Originally posted by 2.5:
Not sure you got my point. Maybe I left too many blanks to fill in. You cant follow every dollar you spend for example. Its a ridiculous argument.
I pay taxes, many of them are used for things I am against. How would you recommend I control it?The Amish pretty much separeate themselves from all of us, its still not enough, and causes other problems.
Its a lot like this, how would you advise they control "how the merchandise money is spent (employees of the suppliers, and to those who gives them money for their merchandise.)" ?
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 07-03-2014).]
I'd love any comments about that. I'm not a business major.
It would depend on who owns more shares, and who controls the board. I can see a founder losing ALL control if he has no shares and doesn't run the board.
People can choose to have a CORPORATION,or not and if they have a corporation, they must follow the laws which allow that corporation to operate. Seems clear to me.
Private business owners have to follow laws too.. and pay taxes..
The main reasons ( to me ) for corporation is fund raising ( stock ) some amount of reduced personal legal liability, and so it will outlive the founder.
[This message has been edited by Nurb432 (edited 07-03-2014).]
Private business owners have to follow laws too.. and pay taxes..
The main reasons ( to me ) for corporation is fund raising ( stock ) some amount of reduced personal legal liability, and so it will outlive the founder.
Then there is LLC too. I would think if most "family owned businesses" are smart they are at least LLC.
Its a lot like this, how would you advise they control "how the merchandise money is spent (employees of the suppliers, and to those who gives them money for their merchandise.)" ?
Originally posted by jaskispyder:The corporation is paying for insurance. And I guess you are ok with a corporation having the same rights as an individual. When that corporation shows up in church, we can talk, until then, it is a business and does not have the same rights under our Constitution.
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819)
quote
"The opinion of the Court, after mature deliberation, is that this corporate charter is a contract, the obligation of which cannot be impaired without violating the Constitution of the United States. This opinion appears to us to be equally supported by reason, and by the former decisions of this Court."
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of Pawlet (1823)
quote
Justice Joseph Story, writing for the court, explicitly extended the same protections to corporate-owned property as it would have to property owned by natural persons. Seven years later, Chief Justice Marshall stated; "The great object of an incorporation is to bestow the character and properties of individuality on a collective and changing body of men."
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad – 118 U.S. 394 (1886)
quote
"The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."
Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania – 125 U.S. 181 (1888)
quote
"Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Fourteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution."
The Hobby Lobby ruling is consistent with legal precedent.
The laws are different for different kinds of corporations. HL is what's considered a closely-held corporation. Meaning it is owned and controlled by members of a single family. Bottom line is they had a problem with the ACA and dared to challenge it. They won their case and, because it's about abortion, it was probably made into more than it really is. We'll all soon forget about this as soon as the next bright and shiny object comes up.
The laws are different for different kinds of corporations. HL is what's considered a closely-held corporation. Meaning it is owned and controlled by members of a single family. Bottom line is they had a problem with the ACA and dared to challenge it. They won their case and, because it's about abortion, it was probably made into more than it really is. We'll all soon forget about this as soon as the next bright and shiny object comes up.
Yup, I am waiting for a Christian Science corporation to argue that they don't believe in medical care, so they don't have to provide insurance to their employees.
With all of this attention on what companies don't want to cover, and the expense, etc... what is going to happen is that we will move to a single-payer system.
But you would say they are wrong and hypocrites for it, and claim it means they cannot do other things. That doesnt make sense.
Maybe a different phrasing..how would you do it correctly?
I can't relate, because I don't hold their views. If they are true believers, then they must follow their religion, but at the moment, they follow what they want. Of course, this is all conjecture, as we are talking about religion and gods (or God)....
Wait to Muslim's start incorporating.... that should be fun to watch the reactions of certain groups.
Yup, I am waiting for a Christian Science corporation to argue that they don't believe in medical care, so they don't have to provide insurance to their employees.
With all of this attention on what companies don't want to cover, and the expense, etc... what is going to happen is that we will move to a single-payer system.
Good Lord I hope not. We've all been seeing how the VA has been run. I fear that single-payer in this country would be the same way. No sir, I don't like it.
I thought John Roberts settled that when he said Ocare was constitutional. The ACHA has not been struck down by any court, so single payer should fly just fine. This HL case had nothing to do with the question of the constitutionality of Ocare.
I can't relate, because I don't hold their views. If they are true believers, then they must follow their religion, but at the moment, they follow what they want. Of course, this is all conjecture, as we are talking about religion and gods (or God)....
Wait to Muslim's start incorporating.... that should be fun to watch the reactions of certain groups.
Just saying, the argument is mostly circular.
Interesting you bring up Islam, there are facets of that religion currently forcing the spreading of their views, making society fit their mold. That is what it would take.
Originally posted by jaskispyder: Say what you will, but it is pretty clear to me... HL pays a company for their merchandise. HL pays a company for their insurance. In both cases once the money is handed over, the transaction is complete. What happens after that money is given is no longer a concern with HL owners.
Sure, they pay for their merchandise. It is not mandated who they buy it from. They also, before Nobamacare, paid for employee insurance, which did provide birth control, even though I am sure they do not aprove 100% for it. Now, their type of insurance coverage is mandated. What if it were mandated what kind of merchandise they had to buy. What if they were forced to buy dildoes for resale.
Maybe you could explain yourself, instead of using a few words when trying to make your point. Also, please reference your comment, instead of just saying that you posted something. It would make it easier to respond to what you are asking if it is clear what you are actually saying.
Sure, they pay for their merchandise. It is not mandated who they buy it from. They also, before Nobamacare, paid for employee insurance, which did provide birth control, even though I am sure they do not aprove 100% for it. Now, their type of insurance coverage is mandated. What if it were mandated what kind of merchandise they had to buy. What if they were forced to buy dildoes for resale.
You are changing the subject... ie.. deflecting. It is ok for "their money" to be used to fund abortions (or whatever) in China. BUT, that same money, paid to an insurance company, can not be used to fund abortions, or whatever for their employees. Double standard. Once the money leaves their hands, it should be treated the same way (either they want to control it, or they don't). They want to have it both ways, though.
Not sure how that works with the 'extended life' aspect. And of course there isn't any stock to sell to investors. But i agree its appropriate for many smaller companies, tho it doesn't isolate them as much from legal issues as a 'true' corporation can.
Back when i was in school we never discussed them ( not sure they existed that far back.. ) but if done 'small' i dont see any huge disadvantages to a true corporation. And if the board/stock owners are the family, they still get to exert their religious and moral preferences into company.
[This message has been edited by Nurb432 (edited 07-03-2014).]
"Earlier this year, Mother Jones revealed that Hobby Lobby's retirement plan had more than $73 million invested in companies that produced emergency contraception pills. It was that same type of birth control that Hobby Lobby said it had an objection to when it took its case against President Barack Obama's health care reform law to the Supreme Court and won. " http://crooksandliars.com/2...obby-investing-birth
So... where is the lawsuit by HL, over the 401K investments? double standard.
(The source... Mother Jones... eh... I don't always agree with them or even follow them... pretty much another spin news site, but they do have a point about HL and the use of "their money")
"Earlier this year, Mother Jones revealed that Hobby Lobby's retirement plan had more than $73 million invested in companies that produced emergency contraception pills. It was that same type of birth control that Hobby Lobby said it had an objection to when it took its case against President Barack Obama's health care reform law to the Supreme Court and won. " http://crooksandliars.com/2...obby-investing-birth
So... where is the lawsuit by HL, over the 401K investments? double standard.
(The source... Mother Jones... eh... I don't always agree with them or even follow them... pretty much another spin news site, but they do have a point about HL and the use of "their money")
That does sound legitimate if they knew about it. It is something they can correct, and is Hypocritical. If you knew about that in the beginning of this thread, your posts with me now make more sense to me, though you should have mentioned it. The point about what other things their customers do is still moot.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 07-03-2014).]
THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR OTHER PEOPLE'S BEHAVIORS. They are only responsible for their own. And they lived peaceably with others who made different standard choices, including customers and employees.
So... if they are not responsible for other people's behaviors, why are they funding organizations that such as NCCF? Sounds like they are doing more than just living peaceably with others...
"Salon writer Eli Clifton has uncovered evidence that the Greens donated millions to the National Christian Charitable Fund (NCCF) to fund the current anti-contraception effort heard by the Supreme Court this week, and also the Arizona anti-gay bill that was vetoed by Jan Brewer a couple of weeks ago. "
"Earlier this year, Mother Jones revealed that Hobby Lobby's retirement plan had more than $73 million invested in companies that produced emergency contraception pills. It was that same type of birth control that Hobby Lobby said it had an objection to when it took its case against President Barack Obama's health care reform law to the Supreme Court and won. " http://crooksandliars.com/2...obby-investing-birth
So... where is the lawsuit by HL, over the 401K investments? double standard.
(The source... Mother Jones... eh... I don't always agree with them or even follow them... pretty much another spin news site, but they do have a point about HL and the use of "their money")
Do keep in mind that normally a 401k investment portfolio is so removed from your employer that its not really a useful piece of information. I also think that its the employees responsibility to pick and choose which funds they want, not the employers, if they dont like the 'defaults. ( i get a report every so often, that i dont read as close as i should at my age, but i'm sure its based on MY choices.. ) Personally i wouldn't want my employer telling a finance expert what to do... Unless i worked for a investment firm.
