Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 01:35 PM) The RFRA is a separate law. They had no exemption under the PPACA. They who? Churches and other not-for-profit corporations did/do. That was the point - why are we allowing exemptions to some corps but not others like Hobby Lobby.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 01:19 PM) When the idea that a corporation could have religious freedom was declared to not be nonsense. Still doesn't get around the fact that you're making an awful argument that the owners of a company shouldn't have the right to operate THEIR OWN f***ING COMPANY as they see fit, but must instead abide by the demands of the employees. Every single employee in this country disagrees with SOMETHING their employer does or does not do.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 01:19 PM) Businesses should have to abide by the generally applicable laws and regulations that apply to all businesses without being able to get around the law because of religious beliefs. Again, that's not the law.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 01:20 PM) Right, they've lost something that is otherwise legally required of employers because their employer thinks its icky. Why is that a good thing? Why should my employers' religious beliefs be able to be used to deprive me of compensation I'm otherwise legally entitled to? Except those exempted by the same law. Exempted mind you, because of, among other reasons, religious beliefs. I take it you and Balta think we should get rid of the exemptions right?

When did you become Duke with the nonsense?

I think that's pretty cool actually.

It cracks me up that there are people b****ing that the Bulls are trying to get Melo in the first place, and people b****ing that we won't get Melo. Both faulting the same people. These are apparently all over the United Center. And Rose and Noah have arrived.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 12:28 PM) If that were the case, he never had a need to become a free agent. He had to opt out to get the max deal. Or try and get the max deal anyway.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 12:02 PM) And you're saying that employees must abide by the religious beliefs of their employer. That seems like a pretty f***ed up world too. No, it's really not. You still have the freedom to choose whether to work for the company. No one is forcing you to do that.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 12:09 PM) Unions are one of the best safeguards against unfair wealth distributions. Like everything, especially economic things, there are pluses and minuses. Yeah I didn't mean to ignore some of the good, but the wealth distribution stuff doesn't really jive when you also add in competitive laborers in the same market. In Chicago for example, good luck getting any work as a tradesman in any area if you're not a member of a union. It's an absolute monopoly. While that's great for the union bosses and the union members, it's not re-distributing any wealth for the non-union workers. Well, it is, by taking the potential income away from them.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Jun 30, 2014 -> 12:54 PM) This is how it works. You pay dues and are represented by the union but don't need to join. The only reason to join is to vote on union issues such as contract approval or strikes. Everyone pays the same regatdless as you are still represented and are part of the negotiating body and get the advantages or disadvantages of the negotiated contract. At least with laborer unions (plumbers, electrical, ironworkers, etc), if you don't join you run the risk of not getting any jobs. It cracks me up that liberals love unions and unions are the most unfair, good ol' boys, you're either with us or against us, organized bodies we have in this country.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 11:45 AM) The employer believes something that the employee believes is not true (add in; the employee is correct). However, the employer gets to force the employee to abide by the employer's beliefs regardless of what the employee believes. It only swings one way; the employer gets all the power. The employee has to abide by the employer's beliefs. So you're saying an employer shouldn't run the business per the wishes of the owners of the company. It must abide by the wishes and demands (and beliefs) of its employees? What world do you live in?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 11:38 AM) So why is the appropriate way for this to swing the employees having to obey the beliefs of the employer and not vice-versa? Re-word that please. I think you're missing a word somewhere so I don't know what you're trying to say.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 11:27 AM) They have to abide by them though. That's not even a distinction without a difference. The employee can believe Hobby Lobby is fully incorrect, which they are, but that does not matter. The employee is forced to abide by incorrect decisions based on the religion of the employer. So what? You said employers force beliefs on their employees. It's simply not true. They may be stuck with beliefs they do not agree with, but they are not forced to believe it themselves.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 11:25 AM) Again, every one of the ones I cited is a publicly traded, closely held corporation. Every one of them is publicly traded but the majority is owned by a group of 5 or fewer people. Walmart is the best example. They are a publicly traded closely held corporation. But by law the "corporation" that is publicly traded is performing business for the benefit of its shareholders. Wal-Mart may be held by a majority of 5 or fewer people, but it's just a majority. Hobby Lobby and other privately held corps own 100%. They make corporate decisions for their benefit alone. That's a huge, huge distinction you're missing. On this point though i'm not sure if Alito even addressed it. I haven't read through the whole opinion. I know for the first 10 pages or so he basically says it doesn't matter because what the HHS was trying to argue was that even though non-profit corps were exempted, for-profit corps should be treated differently. His point was that under the law there should be no distinction between the two. If a non-profit company can have an exemption based on a religious belief, so too should for-profit companies. The public/private distinction i'm sure will be made in subsequent cases.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 11:24 AM) Note the difference. You used the word "stop" in your first post, which implies that it would have had to previously start. In the definition you just used the term "prevent". Prevention is what contraception actually does. However, Hobby Lobby believes that it does something different, that it actually stops pregnancy. This is incorrect, but the court decided that did not matter and Hobby Lobby's belief needed to be recognized regardless of the fact that it is incorrect. Eh, a distinction without a difference. Most women take contraception to prevent pregnancies from occurring, which some may believe is wrong. Just because it's not "stopping" an existing one or that it doesn't always prevent one because it may not occur anyway doesn't defeat the intent behind taking the drug. I'll admit the non-pregnancy use of birth control, to control menstrual cramps for example, is a better argument. But it's still widely available. Go to a planned parenthood. Or as the court said, pass a law that provides that if it's so important, have the gov't pay for it. Don't interfere with the rights of others to mandate that it has to be provided by them (even if indirectly).

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 11:22 AM) So if the employee believes that Hobby Lobby's management is incorrect, which they actually are, they can have coverage the same as people elsewhere in the country? Again, this has nothing to do with an employer forcing it's beliefs on the employee.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 11:22 AM) I googled each one of the ones I mentioned and got a stock quote. And you don't think that's an important characteristic here? That the public company works for shareholders who might not share the same beliefs, but a closely held private corporation doesn't?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 11:19 AM) Neither does contraception. con·tra·cep·tion ˌkäntrəˈsepSHən/Submit noun the deliberate use of artificial methods or other techniques to prevent pregnancy as a consequence of sexual intercourse.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 11:19 AM) This case. Hobby Lobby's "beliefs" are actually factually untrue. They claim that they believe contraceptives actually cause abortions and the court stated that regardless of whether or not it was accurate the government and therefore the employees must respect that belief and cannot have this coverage. Lol, that is not the employer telling an employee what to believe.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 08:52 AM) Justice Alito's opinion seems like it tries to limit itself to the evil that is abortion but you're right, the logic should follow to any other type of health care. It's just sort of a given that it won't get applied to men. They've clearly got no issue covering Viagra. Viagra doesn't really stop pregnancies so... But at some point you guys are right, it becomes a judgment call by the court as to what is a legit religious belief and what is not. But so what? They've made those decisions numerous times in the past. People have tried to get around drug laws by doing the same thing and it hasn't really worked. I just love how you guys are all "slippery slope, slippery slope!" when the decision is not what you want, but with an issue that you support (gun restrictions) the slippery slope argument is a terrible one. So which is it?

QUOTE (farmteam @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 08:46 AM) Right. There are plenty of instances where corporations are treated as people, because it's easier and in many ways makes a lot of sense. But it's a legal fiction. A corporation is not actually a person. There are some rights and privileges that should be held by only actually persons, not fictional ones. As for your second paragraph, I think you're right. There is a decent chance that some district courts will run wild with it (as Ginsburg alluded to in her dissent), but I think only a small chance that this decision has a big impact on a precedent-setting level. As a person running the business though, you are running the company based on how you think the company should be run. I think it's perfectly logical to extend that to any personal beliefs you have. As Alito pointed out, there are other circumstances where the "corporation" does things that "corporations" shouldn't be doing, like donating to charity. That has nothing to do with business operations or making a profit. It has to do with some belief by the management/ownership of the company to do something nice. We provide that company with tax benefits. Should we not because corporations are not people and should only be considered a legal entity performing "corporate" activities?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 08:40 AM) Again, based on IRS rules, Walmart is a "closely held corporation". Koch Industries, Cargill, Toys R Us, Ernst and Young, PricewaterhouseCoopers, GMAC Financial Services are some other ones. How many of those are publicly traded?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 08:37 AM) The important thing is that your boss can tell you what to believe. That's what counts. Example?

QUOTE (MEANS @ Jul 1, 2014 -> 07:41 AM) maybe some of us don't want "GOD" in our country Right, because freedom of religion in this country only goes one way...