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.
Its why Catholic owned hospitals are having to offer the same thing.
A Religious institution, like the church, is set up for religious purposes. But a hospital, or in this case hobby lobby, isn't set up as a religious institution.
What you would purpose is that a Muslim owned business should be allowed to enforce sharia law on their employees, in a gas station. Doesn't make sense.
Hobby lobby isn't set up for religion, so they have to offer contraception through insurance.
Companies are individuals. The fact that they are doing business, changes neither their status nor their constitutional protections. How could it?
No, companies are not individuals. The judge's ruling concerns a business entity, not an individual. Read the judges ruling -- it very clearly concerns the business entities Hobby Lobby and Mardel, Inc.
However, I think it is very clear that you are going to obtusely refuse to see this glaringly obvious fact.
Here's a suggestion -- when you guys can actually get it together and elect a Republican President, stop electing ones that appoint judges like this (a George W. Bush appointee) that you don't like (if you can find a judge who agrees with your silly companies=individuals nonsense -- hey, good luck with that).
No, companies are not individuals. The judge's ruling concerns a business entity, not an individual. Read the judges ruling -- it very clearly concerns the business entities Hobby Lobby and Mardel, Inc.
However, I think it is very clear that you are going to obtusely refuse to see this glaringly obvious fact.
Here's a suggestion -- when you guys can actually get it together and elect a Republican President, stop electing ones that appoint judges like this (a George W. Bush appointee) that you don't like (if you can find a judge who agrees with your silly companies=individuals nonsense -- hey, good luck with that).
Your link didn't work but google found numerous articles.
The judge ruled based, not on religious beliefs of the owners, but on the fact that Hobby Lobby is not an organized religion and for profit corporations do not have the right of free exercise of religion.
So Hobby Lobby must offer the morning after pill and week after pill in their healthcare plans.
But Citizens United declared that corporations are people. So essentially, the government can't regulated the "speech" of a corporation, but can regulate that corporation's ability to exercise religion. I wonder how this is going to play out. I wouldn't be surprised if this goes all the way to the Supreme Court.
No, companies are not individuals. The judge's ruling concerns a business entity, not an individual.
Who do you think is sitting in all those chairs in the offices? Statues? Robots?
Of course companies are individuals. What else could they be?
BTW, I still haven't found the part of the 1st amendment that excludes individuals from its protection against govt interference in religion - a part this judge apparently managed to find.
In his ruling denying Hobby Lobby's request for an injunction, Heaton said that while churches and other religious organizations have been granted constitutional protection from the birth-control provisions, "Hobby Lobby and Mardel are not religious organizations."
"Plaintiffs have not cited, and the court has not found, any case concluding that secular, for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby and Mardel have a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion," the ruling said.
I fail to see where the US Constitution makes that difference between people, churches, corporations etc.... Hey judge!! Instead of looking for court cases to support Constitutional rights, try reading the US Constitution.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Who do you think is sitting in all those chairs in the offices? Statues? Robots?
Of course companies are individuals. What else could they be?
BTW, I still haven't found the part of the 1st amendment that excludes individuals from its protection against govt interference in religion - a part this judge apparently managed to find.
According to the left, if your daughters set up a lemonade stand and sell lemonade, they lose all Constitutional rights and protections because they are no longer people.
So Hobby Lobby must offer the morning after pill and week after pill in their healthcare plans.
The judge ruled based upon the laws as the currently exist, so I don't think they had much choice in the matter.
Still, weren't Obamacare fans insistent that Obamacare did not fund abortions?
Fine and well that the SCOTUS has made abortion and associated procedures legal for all. Why does the taxpayer have to foot the bill for abortive processes of any stripe?? Apparently we were lied to once again.
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.
