Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interestingly enough, corporations actually hate this ruling and the vast majority were against it.
My wife, a lawyer, explained to me the most significant aspect of this finding is that it further erodes the corporate veil. We are getting closer and closer to losing the personal protection a corporation offers individuals with a stake in it.
Burt Neuborne of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School, a co-author of one of the amicus briefs filed in support of the government’s contraception mandate, foresees possible consequences to this “piercing of the corporate veil” that recall an old adage: Be careful what you wish for.
If owners indicate that they are not entirely separate from their corporation — by denying corporation employees’ birth control coverage based on their personal religious beliefs — the case could be made in future state-court litigation that they have waived their right to be shielded from responsibility for corporate financial liabilities.
Plaintiffs may seek to have owners personally cover a corporate debt when a business goes bust, for example, or to hold a corporation responsible when an owner doesn’t have the money to pay their personal bills.
So it is ironic that all you rah-rah pro-business conservatives are loving this finding, as it gets a step closer to losing the personal protection a corporation provided. Unless we are just going to totally bend over to corporations (totally possible) and let them have it both ways (corporate protection and personal liberty) pretty soon you'll be able to go after Joe Blow CEO's personalassets when you sue ABC Accounting.
So hooray for corporate welfare and bigger government because that is what this ruling actually did. The women's rights aspect is just fodder for flame baiting and distraction from the real issues (as the practical application of this finding has little impact on the ability of HB employees to obtain said BC).
Post-Script - Most of the men that are ****-shaming women most likely have not had their **** touched by a woman (for free) in the last year. It's 100 percent true on my Facebook feeds and probably 100 percent true here.
Last edited by munchitup; 07-03-2014 at 01:29 PM..
I hate to admit it. In some ways I'm glad for this decision. I think it will do more to "un-elect" some conservative politicians than anything else could have done.
I'm just sorry it takes this kind of nonsense for that to happen.
At least that would be the aim of the liberal left. Come up with your own version of the events, anything for the lemmings to regurgitate and get all worked up over. Anything it takes.
Did a male medication (specifically a sexual enhancement drug because those are very expensive) get excluded from the plan at Hobby Lobby, or only drugs / devices that females use to control the number of children they have?
Of course vasectomies and Viagra are covered.
And the fact that so many of the products sold at HL come from China where abortion is often physically forced on women even in late stage pregnancy doesn't phase HL at all. After all, it is all about the bottom line. Of course the bottom line is important to all businesses but this seems so hypocritical to me and so many others.
Yeah! by doing things like allowing the government to decide that you should not be allowed to have birth control covered by your insurance.....ohhh wait, no thats businesses.
Or allowing a Canadian business to take your property....oh wait thats keystone pipeline.....
At least that would be the aim of the liberal left. Come up with your own version of the events, anything for the lemmings to regurgitate and get all worked up over. Anything it takes.
So what's new?
Liberal left huh?
My problems with this court started with the Citizens United case. A decision that over 60% of this country opposes. Its clear that the majority on this court sides with corporations against individuals and wealthy interests against those of more modest means.
Tar brushing everyone who opposes this court's action as a member of the "liberal left" is only true if you believe that a majority of this country is liberal left. If you think that 60% of this country is the "liberal left", I think you need to evaluate your own place on the political spectrum. These decisions are unpopular and are gradually undermining the reputation of the Supreme Court.
It may take more than one election, but I think a nasty surprise is coming around 2016 for conservatives. The worst thing GOP candidates could do is go on record embracing both Citizens United and Hobby Lobby. I am praying they do exactly that.
Last edited by markg91359; 07-03-2014 at 07:28 PM..
They are not paying for BC. They AND THE EMPLOYEES are paying for an insurance policy. What do you think is going to happen when companies start nit picking what coverage the health insurance can provide? Need blood transfusions during surgery to save your life? Sorry, your boss is a Jehovah's Witness. You are faced with exorbitant bills and financial ruin. Your neighbor has the same surgery, but his employer isn't an *******, so all is well there. Another employer doesn't believe in organ transplants. A third believes that cancer should only be treated prayer. Another won't provide prosthetics for amputees.
How many different policies do you think insurance companies will be willing to provide? Not many as that will cut into their profit margins. Eventually, there will be no health insurance left.
That takes away everyone's freedom.
The purpose of health insurance is to take care of health issues. Yes, birth control is a health issue. It certainly was for me.
Interestingly enough, corporations actually hate this ruling and the vast majority were against it.
My wife, a lawyer, explained to me the most significant aspect of this finding is that it further erodes the corporate veil. We are getting closer and closer to losing the personal protection a corporation offers individuals with a stake in it.
So it is ironic that all you rah-rah pro-business conservatives are loving this finding, as it gets a step closer to losing the personal protection a corporation provided. Unless we are just going to totally bend over to corporations (totally possible) and let them have it both ways (corporate protection and personal liberty) pretty soon you'll be able to go after Joe Blow CEO's personalassets when you sue ABC Accounting.
I hadn't thought of that, but it makes perfect sense. If a corporation is but an extension of the owners' and the CEO's personal convictions, then it makes no sense that their personal assets wold be protected when things head south for the corporation.
"By letting Hobby Lobby's owners assert their personal religious rights over an entire corporation, the Supreme Court has poked a major hole in the veil. In other words, if a company is not truly separate from its owners, the owners could be made responsible for its debts and other burdens."
"If religious shareholders can do it, why can’t creditors and government regulators pierce the corporate veil in the other direction?" Burt Neuborne, a law professor at New York University..."
"Small wonder, then, that despite congressional Republicans defending the Hobby Lobby decision as a victory for American business against the nanny state, the US Chamber of Commerce—the country's main big business lobby—was quiet on the issue. Even more telling: Despite a record tide of friends-of-the-court briefs, not one Fortune 500 weighed in on the case."
Though Justice Samuel Alito's insisted the decision should be narrowly applied, when has that ever been the case? Supreme Court decisions set the precedence for court decisions throughout the country.
The logic of the argument that corporations are no longer separate from their shareholders is likely to invite a tide of new lawsuits, in the other direction.
Before long, corporations might no longer be viewed as separate legal entities, protecting their shareholders from the actions or misfortunes of the corporations.
They are not paying for BC. They AND THE EMPLOYEES are paying for an insurance policy. What do you think is going to happen when companies start nit picking what coverage the health insurance can provide? Need blood transfusions during surgery to save your life? Sorry, your boss is a Jehovah's Witness. You are faced with exorbitant bills and financial ruin. Your neighbor has the same surgery, but his employer isn't an *******, so all is well there. Another employer doesn't believe in organ transplants. A third believes that cancer should only be treated prayer. Another won't provide prosthetics for amputees.
How many different policies do you think insurance companies will be willing to provide? Not many as that will cut into their profit margins. Eventually, there will be no health insurance left.
That takes away everyone's freedom.
The purpose of health insurance is to take care of health issues. Yes, birth control is a health issue. It certainly was for me.
Then I would just get my own insurance...like I've had to do in the past.
You realize that women do pay for birth control when it's covered under their insurance....copays & deductibles come to mind.
Zero copay for birth control under Obama care.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
