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's ruling in Hobby lobby gave birth to them.
What that ruling did was establish the legal precedent that a privately held business does not have to compromise the owner/s' religious beliefs if a less-restrictive means of achieving the same result is available. It will overwhelmingly be true that other vendors with no such religious objections to providing goods/services, etc., is available.
Thank you for telling me how to utilize my labor and property as you see fit. I am not smart enough, moral enough, or desire to be free enough to make decisions on my own.
I just wish the Republican Party would stay out of social issues. I'm becoming a Libertarian at the end of the year because of how far right many in the Republican Party have gone.
What that ruling did was establish the legal precedent that a privately held business does not have to compromise the owner/s' religious beliefs if a less-restrictive means of achieving the same result is available. It will overwhelmingly be true that other vendors with no such religious objections to providing goods/services, etc., is available.
It opened up the door to consider other applications, after all, it was a landmark ruling, notable because it significantly changed the law on this particular issue.
Even Hobby Lobby had to consider the implications or natural consequences to its own business practices. For example, the 401k package of investment choices included offerings in businesses that produced or were involved in the production or sale of birth control products. Would it be consistent to still offer those same investments? I haven't followed up on this aspect but at the time, their investment portfolios included. & there are companies who manage portfolios to avoid the contradiction.
Thank you for telling me how to utilize my labor and property as you see fit. I am not smart enough, moral enough, or desire to be free enough to make decisions on my own.
Sincerely,
The Masses
Are you channeling Maurice Bessinger here? :roll eyes:
It opened up the door to consider other applications, after all, it was a landmark ruling, notable because it significantly changed the law on this particular issue.
It didn't change the law. It struck down a law that was unConstitutional, providing certain conditions are met (notably: a less-restrictive means of achieving the same result). The First Amendment has always provided the Constitutional Right upheld by SCOTUS in the Hobby Lobby ruling.
Are you channeling Maurice Bessinger here? :roll eyes:
My favorite statist, ChiGeekGuest! Haven't seen ya in awhile. Been out cheering on cops as they write out speeding tickets?
Even you have to admit this whole story is drenched in the follies of the state.
No person (never mind a fictional entity such as the government) owns your body, labor, and/or fruits of the two. Having the state give you permission to deny service is just as wrong as the state telling you not to deny service.
Scorn and public shaming stemming from voluntary contracts that uphold the non-aggression principle would eliminate the violence and slavery on display here.
My favorite statist, ChiGeekGuest! Haven't seen ya in awhile. Been out cheering on cops as they write out speeding tickets?
Even you have to admit this whole story is drenched in the follies of the state.
No person (never mind a fictional entity such as the government) owns your body, labor, and/or fruits of the two. Having the state give you permission to deny service is just as wrong as the state telling you not to deny service.
Scorn and public shaming stemming from voluntary contracts that uphold the non-aggression principle would eliminate the violence and slavery on display here.
If by statist, you mean I have the tendency to state my thoughtviews, I'm happy to oblige the role you've granted me - your Nemesis!
I'm a little short on time here although I'm sure we'll meet again on the way to the forums.
One parting thought - didn't Mr. Bessinger use scorn & public shaming? & passive-aggression?
It didn't change the law. It struck down a law that was unConstitutional, providing certain conditions are met (notably: a less-restrictive means of achieving the same result). The First Amendment has always provided the Constitutional Right upheld by SCOTUS in the Hobby Lobby ruling.
Short on time & this is a large conversation. Do you agree it was a landmark decision? Maybe we could start there. See you next time.
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.
