Hobby Lobby birth control rights case going to Supreme Court

[montanadave]

Any time an American business and or citizen can "opt out" of some big governement overreach it's always a good thing.

As for the poor can't help themselves and need birth control etc, well all I can say about that is this house of cards is not going to stand forever. The piper is going demand his due . . .

I do not favor the extension of individual rights guaranteed to the citizen being extended to corporations. Contrary to what Romney may have asserted, corporations ARE NOT people. A corporation is a legal construct. No more. No less.

I understand the specific legal argument by which the majority opinion was reached was not predicated on the 1st amendment, but the Supreme court is opening up a legal morass here, as that is how many are interpreting this decision, just as Citizen's United extended the right of free speech to corporations.

It's bad law. One of the original designs of corporate law was to shield shareholders and principals from liability, effectively establishing a legal barrier between the legal entity of the corporation and the people who owned and were employed by the corporation. These rulings undermine that distinction. If corporations are to be afforded individual rights but still retain the protections provided by corporate law, we have essentially bestowed on them a privileged status which exceeds that of the individual citizen.

A government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations just doesn't have the same ring to it. YMMV.

[kwelz]

I'm sure you know that statement is up for debate is I'm guessing why you posted it. You also know us discussing it for days won't solve anything.

I wasn't directing it at anyone here. But the media in general. And it isn't up for debate that both sides have lied through their teeth. Nor that some of the meds in question don't do what people claimed they do. I am all for sticking it to Obama and chipping away at Obamacare. But this ruling is going to have some bad consequences. Some of which we are already starting to see being felt out. It puts businesses above people. And I for one don't like that.

[Moose-Knuckle]

One of my Liberal wack-a-do family members posts shit like this on their FB wall all the time. There is always going to be a left/right divide as long as ignorence like this characterizes the opposites.

LOL, yet it was their hero William Jefferson "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman or inhale" Clinton that signed the law they are bitching about.

[Moose-Knuckle]

I do not favor the extension of individual rights guaranteed to the citizen being extended to corporations. Contrary to what Romney may have asserted, corporations ARE NOT people. A corporation is a legal construct. No more. No less.

I understand the specific legal argument by which the majority opinion was reached was not predicated on the 1st amendment, but the Supreme court is opening up a legal morass here, as that is how many are interpreting this decision, just as Citizen's United extended the right of free speech to corporations.

It's bad law. One of the original designs of corporate law was to shield shareholders and principals from liability, effectively establishing a legal barrier between the legal entity of the corporation and the people who owned and were employed by the corporation. These rulings undermine that distinction. If corporations are to be afforded individual rights but still retain the protections provided by corporate law, we have essentially bestowed on them a privileged status which exceeds that of the individual citizen.

A government of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations just doesn't have the same ring to it. YMMV.

So you assert that the Federal Government should be able to tell a privately owned company their own business.

Look you guys that want to buy BC for every loose woman out there, knock yourselves out. Just leave the rest us and our money the hell alone. Why is that so hard to grasp?

[montanadave]

So you assert that the Federal Government should be able to tell a privately owned company their own business.

Let's not conflate issues. I assert that individuals have religious preferences and sensibilities; corporations do not. A corporation should not be able to pick and choose which laws they will follow based upon the personal beliefs of the CEO or a majority of the board of directors.

[brushy bill]

Let's not conflate issues. I assert that individuals have religious preferences and sensibilities; corporations do not. A corporation should not be able to pick and choose which laws they will follow based upon the personal beliefs of the CEO or a majority of the board of directors.

You're misrepresenting the issue, but I won't bore you with the particulars.

[TAZ]

Let's not conflate issues. I assert that individuals have religious preferences and sensibilities; corporations do not. A corporation should not be able to pick and choose which laws they will follow based upon the personal beliefs of the CEO or a majority of the board of directors.

I think I'm misunderstanding your point. So what you're saying is the the owners of a business must set aside their beliefs and simply comply because of a "law".

That doesn't compute. Hobby Lobby in no way was denying their employees access to or the use of any kind of contraceptive they decided was most appropriate up to and including having an abortion every week for all they cared. They just didn't want to pay for it. IMO the benefit package a corporation offers is not anyone's business; especially the governments. Benefits are NOT entitlements...... Yet. You are not entitled to a 401k, pensions, medical or dental. Those are extras that a company offers to keep you on their pay roll. If you don't like them go someplace else. We are either free or we are not.

[montanadave]

I think I'm misunderstanding your point. So what you're saying is the the owners of a business must set aside their beliefs and simply comply because of a "law".

That doesn't compute. Hobby Lobby in no way was denying their employees access to or the use of any kind of contraceptive they decided was most appropriate up to and including having an abortion every week for all they cared. They just didn't want to pay for it. IMO the benefit package a corporation offers is not anyone's business; especially the governments. Benefits are NOT entitlements...... Yet. You are not entitled to a 401k, pensions, medical or dental. Those are extras that a company offers to keep you on their pay roll. If you don't like them go someplace else. We are either free or we are not.

Then repeal the Affordable Care Act.

As it stands, it's the law. And corporations should not be permitted by the courts to cherry pick which elements of the law they adhere to based upon the religious sensibilities of the corporation's officers.

[brushy bill]

Then repeal the Affordable Care Act.

As it stands, it's the law. And corporations should not be permitted by the courts to cherry pick which elements of the law they adhere to based upon the religious sensibilities of the corporation's officers.

Can't have it both ways. You are arguing that the ACA is the law so it should be obeyed, but when the Supreme Court made a decision in this case, you are arguing against it...isn't it law now?

[montanadave]

Can't have it both ways. You are arguing that the ACA is the law so it should be obeyed, but when the Supreme Court made a decision in this case, you are arguing against it...isn't it law now?

Yes. And, as previously stated, bad law in my opinion. Setting aside the deeply divisive issues regarding religion and abortion which are so inextricably intertwined with this particular decision, I think extending individual rights enumerated in the Constitution to corporations is in error and opens a legal Pandora's box which will bedevil us all in years to come.