|
|
Post by showmedot on Mar 10, 2014 6:09:41 GMT -6
ncronline.org/news/politics/despite-failure-bills-stoke-religious-liberty-debateAn interesting National Catholic Reporter analysis of the possible effects of legislation such as the failed Arizona and Kansas bills and the extent to which it's legitimate to protect religious liberty Would appreciate your expert opinion of the writer's assessment of the legalities involved, Trout. Guess I distrust the RCC's idea of what constitutes discrimination too much to agree with its insistence that it doesn't support discrimination but that a Christian still ought to be able to refuse service to anyone whose "lifestyle" offends the Christian's personal moral standards.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 1, 2014 21:36:18 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Apr 2, 2014 1:33:34 GMT -6
Not that I habitually watch Faux News by any means, but I hadn't much choice yesterday while waiting for car maintenance to be done.
Some dude opined on the Hobby Lobby owners' objection to being required to provide contraception to employees contrary to the family's personal beliefs. His point was that corporations do not and should not enjoy the same religious freedoms and protections as individuals. It's one thing for someone to be personally opposed to contraception on religious grounds and quite another to claim that a corporation is an extension of the individual's personal freedoms and thus may impose those beliefs upon employees believing otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 2, 2014 14:55:41 GMT -6
Not that I habitually watch Faux News by any means, but I hadn't much choice yesterday while waiting for car maintenance to be done. Gods and goddesses--what the hell is it about car dealerships and that ridiculous portal of disinformation? Some dude opined on the Hobby Lobby owners' objection to being required to provide contraception to employees contrary to the family's personal beliefs. His point was that corporations do not and should not enjoy the same religious freedoms and protections as individuals. It's one thing for someone to be personally opposed to contraception on religious grounds and quite another to claim that a corporation is an extension of the individual's personal freedoms and thus may impose those beliefs upon employees believing otherwise. Perhaps Jim will place in context the oft-quoted SCOTUS maxim that "corporations are people", arguably the dumbest thing that I have ever read from that body with the exception of Dred Scott. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2014 18:10:10 GMT -6
Not that I habitually watch Faux News by any means, but I hadn't much choice yesterday while waiting for car maintenance to be done. Gods and goddesses--what the hell is it about car dealerships and that ridiculous portal of disinformation? Some dude opined on the Hobby Lobby owners' objection to being required to provide contraception to employees contrary to the family's personal beliefs. His point was that corporations do not and should not enjoy the same religious freedoms and protections as individuals. It's one thing for someone to be personally opposed to contraception on religious grounds and quite another to claim that a corporation is an extension of the individual's personal freedoms and thus may impose those beliefs upon employees believing otherwise. Perhaps Jim will place in context the oft-quoted SCOTUS maxim that "corporations are people", arguably the dumbest thing that I have ever read from that body with the exception of Dred Scott. Flitz: This is perhaps less intelligent than your previous post in the other thread. Just because you read it on HuffPo or heard it on cable news doesn't make it a Supreme Court maxim. Corporations are associations of citizens. Do you deny that? Citizens do not waive the First Amendment when they group together into associations and advocate for a common purpose. Do you have a problem with that? See the First Amendment, you moron. "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Your bogus "maxim" reflects a knowledge of the issues presented in Citizens United that could only be gleaned from a steady diet of partisan-hack blogs. Citizens United is not difficult to understand and the conclusions contained in the opinion should not trouble a libertarian. The opinion is here: www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/08-205P.ZS Read it, or continue to regurgitate the tripe spewed by lefty hacks. Your call. I hope this is not too harsh, I'm trying to be more direct. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Apr 2, 2014 18:49:47 GMT -6
I guess Christian corporations are more likely to make it to heaven. I wonder if god would agree to a name change? Lofty Hobby certainly sounds good.
|
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Apr 2, 2014 22:56:41 GMT -6
Not that I habitually watch Faux News by any means, but I hadn't much choice yesterday while waiting for car maintenance to be done. Gods and goddesses--what the hell is it about car dealerships and that ridiculous portal of disinformation? Doctors' offices, too. Hubby's orthopedist not only plays Fox alone but has a sign on the tv stating in no uncertain terms that any attempt to change channels by direct action or request is an absolute no-no. We figure it's mostly that people assume everybody in redneck states like Missouri thinks Fox News is gospel. After all, Rush Limbaugh was inducted into the Missouri Hall of Fame not long ago as an illustrious favored son. What does that tell you about the Missouri mindset or what it's presumed to be? Scary as all hell, ain't it? |
|
|
|
Post by showmedot on Apr 2, 2014 23:17:44 GMT -6
Corporations are associations of citizens....Citizens do not waive the First Amendment when they group together into associations and advocate for a common purpose. ... "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." ...Jim Ummm, just a second here. How can we at all reasonably construe an employee of a giant corporation as "advocating for a common purpose" when all the poor sucker likely is doing is hanging onto the only job in town that gives her anywhere near a livable wage and medical insurance? Add to that sometimes that there's onsite childcare at no cost or significantly reduced cost, and there may be no question of "choosing" to work elsewhere for many women. Surviving decently trumps political niceties every time when the rubber hits the road, to mix metaphors. |
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 2, 2014 23:56:35 GMT -6
Gods and goddesses--what the hell is it about car dealerships and that ridiculous portal of disinformation? Perhaps Jim will place in context the oft-quoted SCOTUS maxim that "corporations are people", arguably the dumbest thing that I have ever read from that body with the exception of Dred Scott. Flitz: This is perhaps less intelligent than your previous post in the other thread. Just because you read it on HuffPo or heard it on cable news doesn't make it a Supreme Court maxim. I consider HuffPo to be barely within the range of credibility for citing in discussions on this forum. I don't watch TV news of any sort--thanks for asking. If you re-read my post, I was basically asking you, as an informed party, to clarify the rhetoric we often hear on the subject. Bad use of quotes again on my part. I meant it to indicate that what was contained was almost certainly shorthand for what the courts had actually said--not as a literal quotation--and about which I was asking for your more informed opinion. Thanks for coming in with six-guns shooting and making this yet another platform for unsolicited animosity. Corporations are associations of citizens. Do you deny that? Yes. Justice Stevens made a similar argument*, so maybe I'm not completely stupid. I am a participant, via investment in a number of corporate entities. I know that my ability to affect their choices is effectively zero. Corporations are oligarchies which, through power and influence have managed to secure the rights of citizenship while avoiding many of the responsibilities. This is my layperson's opinion, for which you now brand me a moron, in addition to everything you threw at me in the other thread. * i.e. that corporations are not "We the People" for whom the Bill of Rights is enumerated. But hell--maybe I don't know what he really meant. Feel free to call me another name here. |
|
