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.
The Supreme Court did not rule that corporations are people. They rule that the only speech that is issued by corporations comes from people, and the free speech rights of those people is not constrained just because they do not limit their utterances to what the Democratic party and the left desires.
The First Amendment originally applied to Congress… the Bill of Rights was meant to delimit the power of the Federal government, nothing else. This changed with the incorporation doctrine.
<snip>
A business owner or individual property owner has every right to tell someone on his property to be quiet or to leave. There are plenty of angry people that think any private infringement on their “freedom of expression” is a violation of their First Amendment rights.
Hobby Lobby didn't want to pay the added premium for BC for the employees that were never going to use the BC services. It is a waste of money to be made to pay for something you're never going to use. They wanted to opt out and they found a loop hole within the laws.
That's your corrupt interpretation of the case.
The SCOTUS Hobby Lobby ruling is restricted to closely held corporations (not publicly traded) only, and there must be a less-restrictive means of acquiring the services/goods in question.
In the case of bakeries, florists, photographers, caterers, officiants, etc., there are plenty of less-restrictive means to acquire such goods/services for weddings. I posted a link extolling the virtues and even downright trendiness of buying a wedding cake from publicly traded corporation grocery stores. And the photos showed some really beautiful wedding cakes.
So, no, a closely held wedding goods/services business doesn't have to provide goods/services for a same-sex wedding if it violates the business owner's religion.
As far as your article, that may be the purest, most refined pile of B.S. ever posted to this board. Of course anyone who has been here for any length of time knows that is no small accomplishment. Congratulations on that, in any case.
The SCOTUS Hobby Lobby ruling is restricted to closely held corporations (not publicly traded) only, and there must be a less-restrictive means of acquiring the services/goods in question.
In the case of bakeries, florists, photographers, cateres, officiants, etc., there are plenty of less-restrictive means to acquire such goods/services for weddings. I posted a link extolling the virtues and even downright trendiness of buying a wedding cake from publicly traded corporation grocery stores. And the photos showed some really beautiful wedding cakes.
So, no, a closely held wedding goods/services business doesn't have to provide goods/services for a same-sex wedding if it violates the business owner's religion.
Hobby Lobby is a healthcare issue. They have an issue with paying for something their employees will never use. You can call it a corrupt interpretation all you want to, but it is what it is. If they have to go through religious freedom to get there, then that is the path through the law they will take.
As for as the Bakers in Indiana, Pence retracted the first Bill and reestablished that Bakers will provide wedding cakes for gay couples. If they don't, the gay couple can take the Baker shop to court and prosecute them and win a settlement. $$$$
Hobby Lobby is a healthcare issue. They have an issue with paying for something their employees will never use.
What makes you think none of their employees would ever use any of those contraceptive/abortifacient products/services? That's a patently absurd assumption.
What makes you think none of their employees would ever use any of those contraceptive/abortifacient products/services? That's a patently absurd assumption.
I never said, all. I said employees that won't use the BC services yet, Hobby Lobby has to pay the premium for them none-the-less. They want to opt out from being made to pay for something that will never get used.
"Tolerance is a two-way street," Santorum said.
"If you're a print shop and you are a gay man, should you be forced to print 'God hates ****' for the Westboro Baptist Church because they hold those signs up?" Santorum said.
No it isn't. Cite specifically where anyone has said that "Pence retracted the first Bill and reestablished that Bakers will provide wedding cakes for gay couples."
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.
