re: Didn't like the Hobby Lobby decision? Look at the follow up decisions

quote:

---

True. Although I do understand that is was an attempt to accommodate those groups that were truly religious oriented (and non-profit).

---

Non-profit is irrelevant. A non-profit is bound by almost all the rules a for-profit is bound by with the exception of paying taxes. They still comply with discrimination law, OSHA, and other rules, regulations and policies.

Liberals don't like profit and they create a separate category in their mind for for-profits but the distinction is largely artificial.

And a great point was made earlier. Does Gannett Corp not have freedom of the press because they're a corporation? Does Greenpeace lose the right to assemble because they're a corporation? Does the Southern Baptist Convention lose the right to freedom of religion because they're a corporation? Does Clear Channel lose the right to freedom of speech because they're a corporation? Y'all are in a lather about corporations being "given" personhood and rights when they already had it.

quote:

---

Well I think the difference is that the decision focused on the regulation that required for profit companies to provide coverage. So the personal maid example to me is not in context.

---

The effort of most households is to profit. The only difference is lack of a piece of paper saying the household is "incorporated".

quote:

---

f she really believes that there are thousands of other objectors, then I think it's safe to say that MILLIONS likely object to this nonsense. Most people are too damned busy or poor to try to fight it. Therefore, one has to wonder if maybe these regulations are all bull shite forced upon the populace by maybe 10% of the population who managed to make themselves appear to be around 50%.

---

Deuce, the term "objectors" in this context referred to the opt out provisions in the ACA (non-profit companies objecting on religious grounds). The ACA was upheld by the S. Ct. so it is the law of the land.

quote:

---

The effort of most households is to profit. The only difference is lack of a piece of paper saying the household is "incorporated".

---

I can't stretch it that far. A household isn't the same as a for profit business. I only wish my household could turn a profit-we always seem to have a deficit.

quote:

---

Liberals don't like profit and they create a separate category in their mind for for-profits but the distinction is largely artificial.

---

I don't agree and think that is an over generalization. It wasn't an artificial distinction for this case. That was the issue--the opt out provision of the ACA

quote:

---

Y'all are in a lather about corporations being "given" personhood and rights when they already had it.

---

for non-profits due to religious beliefs.

Yes they do and have had for a very long time--the issue for some is how far do you extend those rights.

ETA: BTW 808, I've just got back on the board to read the threads and post. As much as I enjoy this board I don't live on it.

quote:

---

for non-profits due to religious beliefs.

---

So Gannett isn't a non-profit. Do they lose freedom of the press?

quote:

---

What rights do men have that women don't?

---

The right to be drafted.

quote:

---

the issue for some is how far do you extend those rights.

---

Rights are not extended. If it has to be extended, it wasn't a right.

Really 808? I could say the same regarding your response. If you want to depart from the discussion of the case that's fine. So--who said anything about Gannett losing freedom of the press because it is a for profit? The case discussed the opt out for non-profits. It wasn't dealing with anything but that (or at least the majority said it was that narrow issue). Are you asking your question in regard to the expansion of corporate rights? Again, who said anything about taking away recognized rights of a corporation? All I've seen is comments on how far the Court will expand the rights of corporations.

quote:

---

Hmmmm, do you think that might, just might, have something to do with increasingly higher taxes you are paying to support entitlement programs or perhaps the higher insurance premiums you will have to pay to support the free contraceptives that you want companies to pay for?!?! Really, do you think there is even a remote possibility?!?!

---

I'm sorry-what are you referring to, what post specifically.