- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Didn't like the Hobby Lobby decision? Look at the follow up decisions
Posted on 7/4/14 at 9:26 pm to Antonio Moss
Posted on 7/4/14 at 9:26 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
They aren't "people" in the biological sense. They are an entity recognized by law to have protections against government.
On the corporations are not people thing, if they're going to be taxed and regulated by the gov't, then they deserve every right to to voice their desire for whatever public policy they feel is best. Taxation with representation and why citizens united was a good decision by SCOTUS.
2
Posted on 7/4/14 at 9:30 pm to Sentrius
And do we really want to grant government all kind of crazy power over corporations? Since when do liberals trust government?
Should the Feds be able to conduct warrant less raids on corps? Fine them without Due Process? Deny them legal counsel? Require they house soldiers on their premises? (Okay, I threw the last one in because the 3rd amendment never gets any love.)
Should the Feds be able to conduct warrant less raids on corps? Fine them without Due Process? Deny them legal counsel? Require they house soldiers on their premises? (Okay, I threw the last one in because the 3rd amendment never gets any love.)
Posted on 7/4/14 at 9:39 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
And do we really want to grant government all kind of crazy power over corporations?
Liberals and progressives are a collective group and they see corporations as their fellow citizens existing to provide the employees with jobs, benefits, and birth control. The idea that businesses exist to make money is an afterthought to them for the most part. When something goes against a collective like them, there's hell to pay, basically majority rule.
quote:
Since when do liberals trust government?
To provide benefits and security while trying to get the success of a free market and society through artificial means from the gov't.
quote:
Should the Feds be able to conduct warrant less raids on corps? Fine them without Due Process? Deny them legal counsel?
There are some ok with all that. I hope this progressive trend blows over.
quote:
Require they house soldiers on their premises? (Okay, I threw the last one in because the 3rd amendment never gets any love.)
I don't think I know of any issue dealing with the third, historically.
Posted on 7/4/14 at 9:40 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
quote: When I read these broad statements and remember you are a lawyer, I am astounded. What happened to the right to life, liberty, and property, and not being denied these without due process of law? Property rights include these entitlements for which you show so much disdain. There is so much wrong with the paragraph. There was never an issue of the rights of the employees of Hobby Lobby because they possessed no right to the abortifacients. Second, what do you thing due process is? This case went all the way through the Supreme Court. That's the extent of the process this country has.
I was not responding to the Hobby Lobby decision, rather to an attorney's broad statements regarding entitlements. Perhaps if you chose to respond to comments in context, which I quoted, you might have some validity in your derision. Unfortunately, you have created a strawman, which is very weak.
I'm glad you were so proud of putting me down you posted twice. Warms my heart...
Posted on 7/4/14 at 9:42 pm to casualobserver
quote:
I'm glad you were so proud of putting me down you posted twice. Warms my heart...
I don't see where he "put you down".
Posted on 7/4/14 at 9:45 pm to wfeliciana
quote:
It was a sweeping decision.
quote:As far as any home hiring a personal maid is, right?
The owners may be religious but how can a for profit company be?
Posted on 7/4/14 at 9:45 pm to casualobserver
quote:
I'm glad you were so proud of putting me down you posted twice. Warms my heart...
quote:
casualobserver
Casual observance indeed...
Posted on 7/4/14 at 9:50 pm to Sentrius
quote:
On the corporations are not people thing, if they're going to be taxed and regulated by the gov't, then they deserve every right to to voice their desire for whatever public policy they feel is best. Taxation with representation and why citizens united was a good decision by SCOTUS.
Suggesting otherwise seems bizarre to me. Corporations don't deserve constitutional protections?
Tell that to some liberal newspaper should some Republican in power want them shut down. 'No freedom of the press for non-persons!'
'What's that, Google- you want a warrant for us to search your servers? Tough shite, you're not a person!'
Posted on 7/4/14 at 10:12 pm to casualobserver
quote:
What happened to the right to life, liberty, and property
i believe in private property, liberty, and life almost completely free from government interference
quote:
and not being denied these without due process of law?
by whom? what government agency is doing this?
quote:
Property rights include these entitlements for which you show so much disdain.
you are claiming that others have a right to my property (via wealth redistribution). that means that entitlements destroy my property rights, yet you're claiming that protecting my property rights means i'm against property rights?
see how insane that description of this policy is when you use real life?
quote:
As for freely contracting with insurance companies, you failed to mention that the individual doesn't have this great bargaining power to "freely" contract
if they don't like the options, they can choose not to engage in any contracting. it's simple
making the right choice doesn't mean you make the perfect choice. if the benefit/reward outweighs the cost/risk, then a person should make the choice.
quote:
the ones that the corporations do not tolerate a la carte contracts,
again
the best deal doesn't mean it's a perfect deal
Posted on 7/4/14 at 10:13 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
their free market fantasy is nothing but the imposition of the individual being subservient to the corporation.
companies exist to serve customers. if the current set will not, a better option will emerge
Posted on 7/4/14 at 10:16 pm to casualobserver
quote:
You just overruled the SCOTUS, congratulations.
as if bad law doesn't exist from USSC decisions
the USSC was pretty terrible about protecting individual property rights in the 20th century
it started with Wickard and then really ramped up during the Civil Rights cases. completely warped the federal government into the monstrosity that we have today. are you using this as a defense of your preferred policy? really?
Posted on 7/4/14 at 10:18 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
As an individual none of those companies allowed me to negotiate my own rate outside their terms.
and what force did they use to make you agree to their terms? guns? lasers? the actual (star wars) force?
Posted on 7/4/14 at 10:22 pm to wfeliciana
quote:
Well yes that's the point 808, the company will not cover a plan that includes certain contraceptives.
then they can buy their own plan
Posted on 7/4/14 at 10:25 pm to casualobserver
quote:
rather to an attorney's broad statements regarding entitlements
which isn't incorrect
the system is fricked by fedgov interjecting itself into the private lives of people. after a while, these interjections become the norm. then entitlements are seen as property, which is utter insanity (and a major clue that we've allowed fedgov to over-expand into the system) then fedgov will interject itself even more. wash, rinse, repeat, and you get the near police state that we're living in today
this isn't a right/left issue or a DEM/GOP issue...this is an issue of liberty and property rights
you're claiming some "gotcha" because you're assuming my preferred, rational policy choices are the existing legal framework. i never said this was the existing framework. i clearly said the existing framework was fricked, and the quote in the OP sums up just how fricked it is.
again, this is what i said
quote:
all you're seeing is government interjecting itself into the system and fricking it up, creating these mythical "rights" out of government entitlement. public entitlements are NOT rights, and this view (as i noted in page one) is pure insanity
and this whole discussion shows how insane the current system is
This post was edited on 7/4/14 at 10:27 pm
Posted on 7/4/14 at 10:45 pm to LSURussian
Russian, what is up your rear? Jeez man, I didn't proof. And "cover' means pay for in the context I used. You sure add substance to a discussion.
Posted on 7/4/14 at 10:57 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The owners may be religious but how can a for profit company be?
As far as any home hiring a personal maid is, right?
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.
Posted on 7/4/14 at 11:59 pm to wfeliciana
quote:
regulation that required for profit companies to provide coverage
Once they provided exemptions, they didn't help their case.
Posted on 7/5/14 at 12:11 am to the808bass
Juuuuuuuuuuust gonna leave this here then call it a night...
Posted on 7/5/14 at 12:14 am to the808bass
quote:
Once they provided exemptions, they didn't help their case.
True. Although I do understand that is was an attempt to accommodate those groups that were truly religious oriented (and non-profit).
Posted on 7/5/14 at 11:21 am to Bard
that cartoon is great
it really is a great example of the hypocrisy of the lib-prog/SJW mindset
it really is a great example of the hypocrisy of the lib-prog/SJW mindset
Page 9 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News