Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 30, 2014 -> 08:54 PM) But they contribute to 401k plans that include the companies that make drugs they incorrectly insist are abortifacients. And their old plan covered it anyway. It's a form of compensation to employees for their labor. It's no infringement on their actual religion. This whole idea that it is is absurd. Do they have a 401k plan? I didn't think they were big enough for that. But even so, maybe they offer their employees choices about the funds they can invest in. Then it's the employee making the choice to support that, not the company. There's no federal law forcing them to do it.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Jun 30, 2014 -> 08:13 AM) The Leftovers was intriguing enough for me to keep watching, but it was somewhat confusing. Are all those people in the white robes tied into the cult leader that the Police Chief's son is gravitating toward? I don't think so, they were not wearing white, smoking or being silent with each other. I'm intrigued and will plan to watch. Wasn't blown away though.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jun 30, 2014 -> 06:55 PM) A closely held corporation is still a separate entity from that of the owners, with separate assets and liabilities. And that specific corporation is not a sentient being. Hobby Lobby doesn't go to church. Its owners do. What you are saying is that you are ok with the owners' beliefs equating to that of the separate corporate entity. Purely hypothetical, but from a legal standpoint, this decision, it could be argued, pierces the corporate veil by putting the religious beliefs of individuals onto that of the closely held corp. If Hobby Lobby defaults on any debt, could a creditor argue that they can get to the individual owners because their religious beliefs have pierced the corporate veil? I mean, I get that the above is kind of an extreme and unlikely argument, but one of the benefits of forming a separate corporate entity is to keep liabilities separate. Why should Hobby Lobby's owners get to say that they are the corporation when it benefits them but not when it would harm them? Edit: Apparently the corporate veil argument was discussed in the months prior to the decision. http://americablog.com/2014/03/corporate-w...n-aca-suit.html I'm sure that courts would find a distinguishing factor here, but it's certainly an interesting rabbit hole for creditor's attorneys to head down... Back to your piercing argument, here's the main difference: the statute at issue defines persons to include corporations. It specifically exempts certain corporate entities (Churches, religious organizations, charities, etc., e.g. not-for-profit corps) BASED ON RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. I think the holding is pretty limited. As with every decision, of course there will be a million attempts to find loop holes, but I don't see this being a big game changer in litigation against corps and their owners.

BTW, check the first 2 pages of the opinion (the summary of the opinion) and it cites 2-3 places, including the RFRA, that define persons to include corporations.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 30, 2014 -> 07:38 PM) What's great is that this framing completely ignores that what we are talking about here is earned compensation for an employee, not some of random handout. I don't see it as a diversion from liberalism because private regimes of power can be just as controlling if not more so. Eh, I wouldn't go that far. It's a benefit, not a right.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 30, 2014 -> 07:39 PM) That this even rises to the level of a substantial burden on the religious beliefs of the owners is absurd anyway. When it's in direct contradiction to your religion, it's substantial.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jun 30, 2014 -> 06:55 PM) A closely held corporation is still a separate entity from that of the owners, with separate assets and liabilities. And that specific corporation is not a sentient being. Hobby Lobby doesn't go to church. Its owners do. What you are saying is that you are ok with the owners' beliefs equating to that of the separate corporate entity. Purely hypothetical, but from a legal standpoint, this decision, it could be argued, pierces the corporate veil by putting the religious beliefs of individuals onto that of the closely held corp. If Hobby Lobby defaults on any debt, could a creditor argue that they can get to the individual owners because their religious beliefs have pierced the corporate veil? I mean, I get that the above is kind of an extreme and unlikely argument, but one of the benefits of forming a separate corporate entity is to keep liabilities separate. Why should Hobby Lobby's owners get to say that they are the corporation when it benefits them but not when it would harm them? They are separate in most respects, but corporations still only act through their owners/principals/officers. Some corporations (an S-corp for example) are treated the same as their owners for tax purposes. Until birth control and the morning after pill become a "right," all you're really doing is forcing a company to give a benefit to an employee. That in of itself is wrong, but when you trump a religious right on top of it I think you go too far.

QUOTE (farmteam @ Jun 30, 2014 -> 05:15 PM) A corporation can't religiously agree or disagree with anything. It's a corporation. Disagree. This is a closely held corporation. They don't have hundreds of subsidiaries or sister-companies or anything like that. It's one company that happens to have a lot of stores. It's the same as a mom and pop shop in that respect. I think it's crazy that anyone would think that a person or business like this would have to pay for something that directly contradicts their religious beliefs, especially when it's not a health risk or a life and death situation. You want birth control or the morning after pill? Go pay for it yourself. Vaccines would work the same way, assuming you have a company that is in a similar situation. I mean at some point when you start implementing policies and laws that force people to give up their own rights in favor of someone else's, you all realize that's LESS democratic and LESS progressive, right? You guys don't see that as at least a fundamental diversion from liberalism, even if you don't ultimately agree with the result here?

Good decision. I don't think it's right to force a company to provide things to its employees that religiously they do not agree with.

Why that Aereo decision sucks: http://gizmodo.com/the-aereo-ruling-is-alr...r-sm-1597059533 Fox is already using it to tell Dish to stop infringing on its copyrights by using the Hopper service (DVR on the go). That f***ing sucks.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 27, 2014 -> 02:28 PM) now that phil said he'd give max...sigh. I think that was posturing all along. From Melo's perspective, it still makes little sense. You're guaranteeing yourself that you'll be on a s***ty team for at least 2 years if not more. Unless Lebron only signs a one year deal and the Knicks try to go after him in 2015-2016, I don't see why Melo would want to waste 2 of his prime years.

Jesus, what a waste of money: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/golden-gate...de-barrier-vote

Hilarious Newcastle ad:

Well at least this will be over relatively soon: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/source--carme...-172349955.html

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Jun 27, 2014 -> 11:00 AM) On a sidenote, lets not forget that Thibs coached McDermott during Team USA drills last year so the Bulls really got to spend a lot of time with him (and evaluate him against elite NBA competition). For anyone that thinks there is a huge rift in our front office, this pick would not be indicative of that. Thibs sounded extremely excited about the pick and even talked up McD's defensive game and that he can play D (not sure I believe that or not yet) but don't underestimate that fact pattern too. His lack of defense is a little overblown IMO. He's not a lockdown guy, but I'm sure he can be serviceable. His role at Creighton was to stay out of foul trouble and hit shots, so his one-on-one defense was never emphasized. And it won't be for the Bulls since they play a defense that's about positioning on the court just as much as man-to-man principles. He's also a guy that averaged 7.5 boards a game. So it's not like he's a perimeter-only player.

Danny Green was drafted, but dropped down to the D-League a couple times. John Lucas III was there too right? He beat Lebron once. And also got dunked over too...

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 27, 2014 -> 09:29 AM) And just for the record, I love the McDermott pick. If you had to draw up a Thibs player, this is it. He works hard, he hustles, he plays defense as hard as he can, and he can shoot. The guy is one of the best college shooters I can remember seeing. Even with entire defenses scheming around him, he can shoot. At the next level he will see better individual defenders, but not nearly the team defense he saw in college. He is going to get a lot of looks via Derrick Rose. And let's face it, the Bulls need SOMEONE who can score, and that is what this kid does. He scores. The Bulls didn't need another athlete who could jump through the ceiling, but had no skills. They didn't need another shutdown defender. They needed a scorer. They weren't going to get a top player in this draft because of where they were picking, but working up to get McDermott is a really nice get for them. Yep, agree totally.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 27, 2014 -> 09:10 AM) If you are 7 feet tall, and can't get drafted at all, it is because you f***ing suck. Look what centers in the NBA get paid. If these guys were even decent, someone would have snapped them up. Yep, good point.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 09:12 PM) I'm not a huge fan of Shabazz, honestly. Seems like the typical undersized guard that goes off in college and is forgotten as a pro Mario Chalmers and Norris Cole everyone!

If McDermott is a tweener, so is Harris

what a fall for gary harris. a little undersized but he was projected at 9-10

Good on the NBA for this move. Classy.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 08:13 PM) Yeah, Adam Morrison was pretty good, too. How did that work out? For the first time ever I agree with Badger. Awful trade. But at least Chicago has another grindy white guy to worship. He is not comparable to Adam Morrison at all.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 08:12 PM) As a Frosh Doug shot 40% from 3, Hood 42%. And Kirk is the exact guy that needs to stop playing. Kirk is fine for a few minutes. You're not expecting him to play 20.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 26, 2014 -> 08:08 PM) Yeah Hood plays a 2/3, which is would work better for the Bulls. But its okay, we didnt need a back up pg. We have Kirk for another year, right? As for McDermott - 55% from the floor and 46% from three while averaging 21.7 points per game. He never shot lower than 52.5% overall or 40.5% from three in any single season. As the primary scorer. As the primary guy defenses attacked. Hood shot 46% overall and 42% from three. On a Duke team where he was the 2nd or 3rd option. edit: and they're the same size. why do you think Hood is a 2/3?