Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
this was a hard case. I suppose that largely depends upon your interpretation of the First Amendment.
To my mind, this is clearly "a Supreme Court decision respecting an establishment of religion" where none was intended in the original law.
A very slippery slope.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
rmuir writes:
"The Majority Decision: Supreme Court Injustices. White, Catholic, conservative men; the lot of them."
I wonder if Clarence Thomas knows he's a white Catholic.
|
|
dave729
Trad climber
Western America
|
|
I'm being denied a Gulf Stream II personal jet upgrade and have to
live with a Cessna. Don't talk about free birth control. Some of
us are really suffering flying at 160knots when 500knots is being denied
for no reason other than the Liberals won't give me one for free!
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
The Majority Decision: Supreme Court Injustices. White, Catholic, conservative men; the lot of them. Of course, that had nothing to do with it.
Robs, I think that quote proves too much. After all, no one attempted to abort any Justice of the Supreme Court ever, yet they must decide issues of abortion, too. It's an issue about the beginning of life, which leads me to a joke one of my law partners told me.
A liberal protestant minister and a conservative Catholic priest were discussing the morality of abortion. Like climbers, their discussion could be misinterpreted as an argument. Soon, they began debating the point at which life began, each marshalling Old Testament scripture to support their respective positions.
Just then, an Orthodox rabbi walked by. The priest and minister thought since they were arguing Old Testament, why not ask the rabbi, so they said, "Rabbi, maybe you can help us. When does life begin?"
The rabbi thought, "When does life begin? . . . When the kids are out of college and the dog dies, that's when life begins!"
John
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Hair-splitting is an effective way to achieve one's political interests (or undermine someone else's). It also works well in law, and can make the most ridiculously obvious case fail due to minutiae.
Meanwhile...the impacts of the bigger picture march on, with the interests of others being trampled underfoot.
|
|
rmuir
Social climber
From the Time Before the Rocks Cooled.
|
|
I wonder if Clarence Thomas knows he's a white Catholic.
He's about as white as they come…
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
JE:
Hobby Lobby, in contrast, is an association of individuals organized to conduct commerce, which is an activity without First Amendment protection. JE, I'm not exactly sure what you meant or intended to mean by the above, but if it's that commercial speech lacks First Amendment protection, it's incorrect.
Commercial speech is indeed protected under the First Amendment, albeit not to the same extent as other types of speech.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
True, blah, blah. I'll need to re-think how I articulate my distinction better, but for now I'll try this: Commerce, in and of itself, differs from religious exercise in that the latter has explicit First Amendment protection. Commerce generally has a few Constitutional protections, such as the Fifth Amendment prohibition on taking without compensation, the right to conduct business without interstate tarrifs, the right to commercial speech, etc. Commerce lacks a blanket Consitutional protection, however, in contrast to exercise of religious beliefs.
John
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Do we still say his freedom of conscience controls?
FOR SURE!!!
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness! Freedom to express who you are!
i see all this as trying to break down ones character. Because one holds different morals than you you want to regulate his actions? If you dont like his opinion on abortion, Don't work for him! and don't buy his carrots!!!
The big picture here is the drug companys and government are training you to be puppets,just shut up and take a pill.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Dr. F: earlier you said that the Hobby Lobby applies to Walmart.
Your last post doesn't mention it.
Do you know admit that Hobby Lobby does not apply to Walmart, or are you going to keep lying to everyone?
Please stop posting liberal propaganda and READ THE FREAKING DECISION!
edit--hard to keep up with Dr. F's posting.
Rest assured everyone, Hobby Lobby does not apply to Walmart, which is a publicly traded company and is not "closely held" in the context of Hobby Lobby (I very much doubt it's closely held under definition of that term, including the IRS's definition).
Dr. F, if you contend that Walmart is "closely held" under any definition, please:
1. set forth the definition, and
2. show how that definition applies to Walmart.
Please DO NOT simply post more libtard propoganda.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Dr. F--willfully being ignorant is tantamount to lying.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
In both cases (Citizens United and PACC), the corporation is really individuals acting in concert to perform duties explicitly protected by the Constitution. A point: Agreed, CU seems to apply to only a small class of corporations. I haven't the time to carefully read about the case.
A question: What restraints on campaign finance (if any) does CU place on plain old profit making commercial enterprises such as General Motors?
A point: my tossing in CU was rather irrelevant.
The question in Hobby Lobby is to what extent a corporation can interfere with a government benefit on religious grounds.
In the real world of life and commerce, corporations have immensely more power than individuals. In matters of commerce (rather than free speech) may their "beliefs" trump an employee's rights?
This is part of the problem, as pointed out by Ginsburg and JE.
Can a corporation in the business of making or selling stuff or providing a service (as opposed to "duties explicitly protected by the Constitution") have the right to trump an employee's right granted by Federal Law?
Consider that the specific purpose of any corporation is for the shareholders to act as a single legal entity. A corporation is effectively a "person" under the law. Can one person deny another a right granted by the Federal Government?
It's all very easy to say the employee can go find another job. Another thing for that employee to find another job with comparable wages, working conditions and benefits plus the benefits denied by their present employer. If it were so easy, she would have already done it.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
To my mind, this is clearly "a Supreme Court decision respecting an establishment of religion" where none was intended in the original law.
In my understanding, the term "establishment of religion" is directly directed to Government. Utah cannot elect itself as a Mormon state and run itself as its bible tells them.
HobbyL should have never brought religion into this(other than making a point) they should(as should any other private business) have the right to agree/disagree with what the government puts forward on moral issues.
You think your rights are being taken away, what about hobby's?
shouldn't they have the right to hold on to their Character even when doing business? This whole thing is blanketed under business and health coverage.Hobby hasn't taken away the right for the woman to take whatever medicine she wants. Hobby has only dictated what they allow coming from a policy they paid for.
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
No. They should have to conduct themselves according to the rule of law, like the rest of us.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Being goaded by Dr. F's is fool's errand, but anyone who is interested in whether Walmart is a closely held corporation as used in Hobby Lobby would be well served to consult any mainstream analysis rather than Dr. F's libtard nonsense.
E.g., from
http://www.freep.com/article/20140630/BUSINESS07/306300097/scotus-hobby-lobby-contraception-obamacare
Don Hazaert, executive director of Michigan Consumers for Health Care, also was upset about the decision. But he said he doesn’t believe it’s going to have a huge impact, noting that the decision applies only to corporations that are controlled by just a few people, not publicly held corporations such as Wal-Mart.
“We do not expect it to impact that many Americans,” Hazaert said. “The vast majority of women throughout America will still be able to receive the full spectrum of contraceptive services in the vast majority of cases.”
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
It's incredibly easy to illustrate the clear, obvious bias that our society & politics have against women's empowerment over their own bodies, vs. the empowerment that is only reinforced for men.
Yes! And the root of that evil would be Evolution!
The strongest will survive, Right?
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
People who want to make these kind of special exceptions for corporations and individuals when regards to which laws may or may not be applicable should question and consider whether it was the founding father's intention that religious belief should trump federal law (or state law for that matter).
I'm drawing from every conversation I've had with anyone of a religious nature who makes the claim that the law of God trumps the laws of man every time, and if the two conflict, they go with the law of God. And believe me, there's plenty of that. Just ask the radical Muslims.
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
Sometimes the smartest outwit the strongest.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!