People? Women!?!! (OT)

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 201 - 220 of total 256 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

jonnyrig

climber

Jul 2, 2014 - 10:01am PT

Yes, a womans body is a touchy subject. But only if you treat her right.

JEleazarian

Trad climber

Fresno CA

Jul 2, 2014 - 10:23am PT

Repost to this thread when they are teens and doing exactly as you tell them.

:-)

Tami for the win!

There seems to be an awful lot of people telling other people what they ought to do. Knowing how well that works among climbers (see any thread regarding climbing style or ethics) should give us a clue how well that works with humans in general. I'd have better luck commanding my cat.

John

jonnyrig

climber

Jul 2, 2014 - 10:24am PT

Ha! Sure thing. Ya did catch the second part of that, right?

My point is that we dont have much business telling each other what to do, but HL is doimdng just that to their employees, being granted special exception to an otherwise general rule.

blahblah

Gym climber

Boulder

Jul 2, 2014 - 11:26am PT

I'm still waiting for Dr. F to apologize for propagating the myth that this decision applied to Walmart. No one who read the decision (as opposed to reading liberal propaganda) would say that (at least if they understood what they read).

All over the media today: "Closely held corporation" is actually in the majority decision several times, of which WalMart is unquestionably one.

Ken, sorry, but it's not. You and FM and and DF repeating it doesn't make it true.
FM said something about Investopedia claiming that Walmart is a closely held corporation. I asked FM for a cite--he never responded. Here's what Investopedia says about it.

Definition of 'Closely Held Corporation'

Any company that has only a limited number of shareholders. Closely held corporation stock is publicly traded on occasion, but not on a regular basis. These entities differ from privately owned firms that issue stock that is not publicly traded. Those who own shares of closely held corporations should consult a financial planner with expertise in the tax and estate ramifications that come with owning this type of stock.

See http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/closely-held-corporation.asp

Walmart has an unlimited number of shareholders and its stock is publicly traded on the NYSE every freaking day, it's being traded now as we speak.

Case closed?

(The "IRS Definition" is a red herring--there's no reference to it whatsoever in the Supreme Court decision, and the majority opinion describes the ownership structure of the companies involved in the Hobby Lobby decision to show that all ownership, not just over 50%, and control is in the hands of the founding, nuclear family. The IRS definition may have applicability in matters before it, but the IRS doesn't define the meaning of words in other matters.)

Here's an article with a somewhat useful distinction between a closely held corporation and a publicly held corporation, please read it and stop wasting time bickering.
http://business-law.freeadvice.com/business-law/corporations/close_corporation.htm

Ken M

Mountain climber

Los Angeles, Ca

Jul 2, 2014 - 11:32am PT

All over the media today: "Closely held corporation" is actually in the majority decision several times, of which WalMart is unquestionably one.

Ken, sorry, but it's not.

Sorry, Blah, but a guy whose only chops for making financial statements is looking on the internet for things that support you, has no credibility in my book.

I stated that I head/saw that all over the media, in such places as the Financial Times, WSJ, Economist, Bloomberg News...and that is true. You may think that you have the expertise to counteract opinions of actual financial people, but anyone who is unwilling to put their name to their opinions doesn't impress me with their credibility

blahblah

Gym climber

Boulder

Jul 2, 2014 - 11:46am PT

Ken, OK, you don't believe Investopedia (a widely used and respected online resource.). How about you just read the freaking Wikipedia entry and stop bickering!
This is not rocket science! A publicly traded company is not a "closely held corporation" in the context of the Hobby Lobby decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privately_held_company

A privately held company or close corporation is a business company owned either by non-governmental organizations or by a relatively small number of shareholders or company members which does not offer or trade its company stock (shares) to the general public on the stock market exchanges, but rather the company's stock is offered, owned and traded or exchanged privately. More ambiguous terms for a privately held company are unquoted company and unlisted company.

The Wikipedia article goes on to set forth the largest privately held companies (a synonym for closely held in this context, if not in all contexts). See any company that is missing?

Koch Industries, Bechtel, Cargill, Publix, Pilot Corp., Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (one of the members of the Big Four accounting firms), Hearst Corporation, S. C. Johnson, and Mars are among the largest privately held companies in the United States. KPMG, the UK accounting firms Ernst & Young and PricewaterhouseCoopers, IKEA, Trafigura, J C Bamford Excavators (JCB), Lidl, Aldi, LEGO, Bosch, Rolex and Victorinox are some examples of Europe's largest privately held companies

If your argument now is that Investopedia, Wikipedia, the Hobby Lobby decision itself (majority opinion and dissent) are all wrong but you, FM, Dr. F, and various uncited Internet resources are right, I think we're at loggerheads. Good day!

Edit:
Ken, a final, serious question to you:
Will you at least agree that the Investopedia and Wikipedia definitions that I posted above both:
(1) perfectly describe the ownership of the companies involved in the Hobby Lobby decision, and
(2) exclude Walmart?

If you are honest enough to do that, can you explain that?

blahblah

Gym climber

Boulder

Jul 2, 2014 - 12:10pm PT

Ken,
I'm about finished my lunch break and I was trying to find some (any) of those references that you claim say that Walmart is a closely held corporation in the context of Hobby Lobby.
I couldn't, but I came across an MSNBC article.
This dispute is over now, if it ever really existed.
Will you apologize for trying to fool people on ST? I see that Dr. F and FM just ran away, but I think you have more self respect than that.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/every-way-the-supreme-court-could-rule-hobby-lobby

The next question would be how far the court’s exemption would sweep beyond Hobby Lobby and Conestoga. Could even large, publicly traded companies like Taco Bell and Wal-Mart claim religiosity to get out of complying with the law? At oral argument, Chief Justice John Roberts said that is a “question that we’ll have to await [in] another case,” but added, “[that] sort of situation, I don’t think is going to happen.” So probably no Wal-Mart opt out – yet.

The court could rule even more narrowly than restricting exemptions to privately held companies – it could limit the exemption to companies that are as visible about their religious expression as Hobby Lobby or its sister company, a Christian bookstore, are.

Edit:
Dave, if you are interested in this, would you care to address the last point I made in the post right above yours, as well as article in this post?
There is really no question here, notwithstanding the red-herring IRS "definition" (I have no context for that "definition," it looks like it's from something directed to small businesses--it may have some applicability in IRS matters, but that doesn't mean squat in terms of the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision).

Reilly

Mountain climber

The Other Monrovia- CA

Jul 2, 2014 - 12:21pm PT

All they did here was create confusion.

I thought that was the raison d'etre of lawyers?
Confusion = complications = job security.

JEleazarian

Trad climber

Fresno CA

Jul 2, 2014 - 12:28pm PT

But none of this changes the fact that the majority opinion on the Hobby Lobby ruling is an illogical mess.

Therein lies the rub. The court's majority is trying to preserve the free exercise of religion in an area (for profit corporations) where logic dictates the absence of religious exercise.

While I doubt that anyone seriously thinks the parade of horribles is likely to happen, I do expect subsequent decisions to limit this case to its facts to make sure those horrendous hypotheticals do not happen. In particular, I expect subsequent cases to deny free religious exercise protection for any corporation whose stock is publicly traded.

Those who like to simplify this case, by saying it makes an exception to the rules by which the rest of us live, miss the issue. We have conflicting rules. We all live by the Commerce and Tax clauses of the Constitution, but we also all live by the First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion. What do we do when these rules produce a different result, depending on which takes precedence?

My objection to the majority's opinion comes down to the impracicality of ad hoc jurisprudence. The California Supreme Court in the late 1960's and the 1970's was particularly prone to such jurisprudence in all areas. This made nothing certain, and everything litigable. This may have been good for attorneys, but it made business difficult and expensive.

While I understand the majority's desire to protect the religious liberty of Hobby Lobby's owners, I think the damage to the law from this ruling outweighs the majority's attempt to reach a perfect result in every case.

John

blahblah

Gym climber

Boulder

Jul 2, 2014 - 12:38pm PT

I looked at the oral argument transcripts, and I'll copy the relevant part below.
It is clear as a bell that Chief Justice Roberts does not believe that the Hobby Lobby decision applies to publicly traded corporations (which I think we can all agree that Walmart is).
This is really over now.
(For those of you who don't know, an "S Corporation" is one that has a limited number of shareholders, among other requirements, and is thus "closely held.")

Whatever else Walmart is or isn't, it's a "large publicly traded corporation."
As Justice Roberts explains, the issues raised by a "large publicly traded corporation" will "await another case."
Therefore, Hobby Lobby doesn't apply to Walmart (unless you think that Chief Justice Roberts also doesn't know what "closely held" means).

Time to stick a fork in this one folks.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, that's his
12 argument for distinguishing it. But there are others,
13 including the fact that it is more you avoid all of the
14 problems with what to do if it's a you know, there's
15 a 51 percent ownership of the shareholders, if you
16 simply say that it's in this type of Chapter S
17 Corporation that is closely held. Whether it applies in
18 the other situations is is a question that we'll have
19 to await another case when a large publicly traded
20 corporation comes in and says, we have religious
21 principles, the sort of situation, I don't think, is
22 going to happen.

DF-- a "controlled company" does not equal "closely held."
"Held," in this context, means ownership.
Also, I am not what people would call a "business lawyer" or "corporate lawyer"; I'm an IP (intellectual property) guy, for better or worse.

The transcript I posted above is really irrefutable (and I learned of it from the MSNBC article, which is equally irrefutable.
Just let it go guys, lick your wounds and move on!

dindolino32

climber

san francisco

Jul 2, 2014 - 12:42pm PT

We should be more worried about big corporations than big government. Elections offer a chance for turnover whereas CEOs are in it for much longer. Corporations will do anything to get our money. Trust me, I work for one. And I've never met a boss that told me that our stock holders want the best for the greater good.

Reilly

Mountain climber

The Other Monrovia- CA

Jul 2, 2014 - 12:43pm PT

Elections offer a chance for turnover

So does a compost heap.

blahblah

Gym climber

Boulder

Jul 2, 2014 - 01:03pm PT

Based on your citation, it seems he really never bothered to understand what it means.

But it seems the debate is over because you have declared yourself the victor.

OK, Roberts and I (and that other pillar of conservatism, MSNBC) are wrong, and you guys are right. Happy now?
(Or you may wish to consider that the IRS blurb that you refer to, apparently now your last straw, doesn't seem to be part of any federal law or regulation, but rather appears in some IRS help manual that is apparently intended to assist small business owners. I know you're not a lawyer, but even you should be able to understand that an IRS publication is not binding on the Supreme Court. This is true in any context, but is especially true when there is no IRS issue in the case! Therefore, it may be useful to consider what "closely held" means both in normal business contexts (hence my reference to Wikipedia and Investopedia) and more specifically under the facts at issue in the Hobby Lobby case.)

Michelle

Social climber

1187 Hunterwasser

Jul 2, 2014 - 01:08pm PT

Honestly, I haven't read all the posts yet but id like to say a few things.

Jul 1, 2014 - 07:41am PTTo start with the statements on the op are completely at odds with the facts.First of all, Hobby Lobby (really the family that owns it) had no problem with birth control coverage, it was paying for abortions that they objected too. (both surgical and chemically induced)

the fact is the HL considers birth control that impedes the implantation of a fertilized egg equal to abortion. Not all birth control does this.

To the idiot who said we should just put all women on the pill... Your ignorance and masochism are hanging out. Go develop a male pill, eh? Fu.ck you.

I'd like to see this challenged as a HIPPA violation.

blahblah

Gym climber

Boulder

Jul 2, 2014 - 01:18pm PT

Walmart . . . [is] publically traded, so is not covered in the SCOTUS ruling

Fine that's good enough for me, just as long as the ST record is corrected, I'm satisfied.

JEleazarian

Trad climber

Fresno CA

Jul 2, 2014 - 01:31pm PT

I couldn't disagree more. The only corporations with which I am forced to do business are those granted a government monopoly, such as PG&E in the Fresno area. Even there, though, solar power minimizes my transactions with the local monopolist.

Otherwise, I hold an election -- in which I am the only voter -- every day, and often many times a day. I choose with whom I do business, and on what terms. If they offer me a "take it or leave it" deal, I'm free to leave. The government offers no such options. If the government selects the 66th best way to do somoething, it will prevent anyone from doing it any other way.

Besides, corporations cannot extort me legally, as the Government can and does daily.

John

JEleazarian

Trad climber

Fresno CA

Jul 2, 2014 - 01:38pm PT

While I pay may taxes because I think I should, and because I'm grateful for what government provides, I'm also aware that the government says, in effect, "Nice life you got there. Be a shame if something happened to it, like we took all you own and threw you in the slammer. . . If you just pay us, though, we'll protect you from anyone that would try to do that to you."

The government has the legal power to do that, and corporations do not.

John

John Duffield

Mountain climber

New York

Jul 2, 2014 - 01:44pm PT

well if women are outraged they havta pay for their own Birth Control now, wait until Sharia Law comes to a location near them, and ISIS tells them, they need to stay indoors due to "modesty".