Do you agree with the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision?

actually businesses can be granted the same rights as a person. It is a legal concept known as Corporate Personhood. The concept was most recently upheld by the Supreme Court in 2010. The concept itself was also looked at by the SCOTUS in both the 1900s and the 1800s. This is not a new concept.

Sir, excellent question. I've been wondering over the last several years the same thing myself.

CW2 Jonathan Kantor, I suggest you read the decision instead of listening to either a liberal or a conservative interpretation and/or talking points (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf).

I mentioned this because of some incorrect facts you're stating. For instance, Hobby Lobby offered a health plan that covered the costs of contraceptives before and still offers a plan which covers the cost of contraceptives.

The key distinction is that they are not offering to cover the costs of contraception that they said they have a religious belief against (specifically, 4 of the 20 different forms of contraception offered). The owners of Hobby Lobby never stated that employees couldn't take the contraception that they deemed offensive to their beliefs, only that they disagreed with having to pay for it because because of religious objections.

Additionally, this wasn't a case about corporation's rights. This was a case where the government was drawing a distinction between nonprofit and for profit organizations in the exemptions they were giving.

That whole "corporations are people" is a correct comment from Romney ... but as his opponents were quick to do, taken out of context. Did he believe that corporations should be treated as individuals? Not at all (in fact, here is a clip of where he said it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2h8ujX6T0A ... notice the context he was saying it in was that money corporations earn end up in peoples pockets)

I always chuckle when either liberal, moderates or conservatives state the "corporations are people". I fully agree that you probably have a screw loose if you think a corporation is a person.

Finally, does a corporation have some rights that people enjoy in the eyes of the law? Absolutely. This is called the concept of "corporate personhood" (for example, corporations have the same rights as individuals in entering and enforcing contracts, having corporate beliefs, etc). At the heart of this concept is that corporations are collections of people and that those people shouldn't be deprived of their rights given by the Constitution when acting together.

Hope it helps Chief.

Additionally, the decision that you reference is the first in a long line of SCOTUS rulings that uphold and that have upheld the legal concept of Corporate Personhood.

The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and the people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively. In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction which allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions that would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and protects the individual rights of the shareholders.

So to your point Chief, you can't have it both ways.

PO2 Ed C., your comment about "government does not belong in the bedroom" brought to mind one of the supporters of the Hobby Lobby decision said to those protesting the decision when they said those exact words.

Their response? "I absolutely agree. Now why are you forcing the employer to go in there instead!?"

CPT (Join to see), what's at odds are two fundamental beliefs on responsibility. The liberal view of responsibility is that society is responsible for your care while the conservative view is that you are responsible to care for yourself.

Emotionally, either side will automatically say that their approach is correct and come up with all sorts of views to back it up. Liberals will say that if you disagree then you don't care for those that don't 'have', then you're heartless, focus on the rich getting richer, etc. Conservatives will point individual responsibility, that the 'robin hood' approach is nothing more than socialism, etc.

Which is right? Both. Which is wrong? Both. Like almost everything else, "it depends on the situation".

Personally, I have a conservative view with some liberal aspects thrown in. I believe that individuals should have personal responsibility, but society should give safety nets for those responsible individuals that fate threw a cure ball. If you want to better your position in life, you should be afforded opportunities by society, but it's up to you, not society, to improve your lot in life.

What really strikes up the conservative view of personal responsibility for me is when people think that they are automatically entitled to something, regardless of what it is. Should you have the right to seek employment? Absolutely. Should you have the right to demand a level of compensation for that job? Again, absolutely. Are you entitled to receive that level of compensation? No. Again, is my view "correct" - it is for me, but not likely for others.

Thank you LTC (P) Randall Cudworth

Equality of opportunity and equality of circumstance are two different things.
This touches on your comment about improving your lot in life. You are born with the opportunity to do great things. You can attend college, become a doctor.."do anything you put your mind to"...

But not everyone is born of equal circumstance. This issue has been deemed sexist and an issue of equality. I disagree with that.

I also have conservative views with some liberal views mixed in.

Your view is correct in terms of fairness.
You have the right to live life in the pursuit of happiness. That doesnt mean that anyone is going to give it to you. Or a job. or a salary. or plan b contraception.

Thanks for your post, sir.

SSG (Join to see) I think I just puked in my mouth a little.

SFC (Join to see) , disgusting isn't it?

Sir,
For those who believe that life begins at fertilization, morning after pills DO cause abortions.

Lt McCarthy, you failed to read the details of the attached studies in my post. The mechanism of action for those medications do NOT work on fertilized eggs. They instead prevent ovulation. Ovulation is when the ovaries secrete unfertilized eggs and they travel down the Fallopian tubes. No ovulation = no fertilization = no abortion. If the ovary can't ovulate, fertilization cannot occur. In fact, there are ZERO studies that demonstrate what you stated. Read your facts before typing :)

One more thought - there is a post on here about legal hunting of big game animals. I personally disagree with it and consider the taking of life for the "sport" of hunting to be worse than the use of contraception. But you don't see me pushing to have it made illegal and taxes I pay in the US go to subsidize hunting areas. Again, my morals are my own, constitutional rights are outside of my personal beliefs.

What's with the drive by down-votes in this thread? I think that 95% of my total down votes have come from this thread. If you disagree, state your opinion. I'm happy to discuss. At least MAJ Ballinger and SSG Redondo have the balls to post what they think in an intelligent way.

MAJ Carl Ballinger , well said.

MAJ Dews, I'm truly sorry if you really think I am in any way saying DUIs are okay or legal. I'm not. Just using it as a very simple analogy of the mindset of a commander regarding the actions of his subordinates. You state correctly that DUIs are illegal but birth control is not illegal. You then go on to state your “beliefs as a libertarian stop and start with what I believe is legal and constitutional.” Correct? What makes you the arbiter of what is legal and constitutional? Is it possible that your beliefs MAY NOT be legal and constitutional? Guess what? I can acknowledge that some of MY personal beliefs are not legal and constitutional because I AM an error prone human being. The fact of the matter though is I am at least willing to step back and take an objective look at what is the truth and what is truly constitutional regardless of MY own very flawed personal ideas.

You then go on to state you “prefer to protect the rights of the workers to use their LEGAL healthcare as they see fit, vs forcing my morals onto them.” Correct? A person’s LEGAL healthcare stems from THEIR choice whether to have healthcare (yes, there are some who actually don’t WANT insurance) or not. It’s also THEIR choice as to what type and amount of healthcare they so desire. It is NOT their choice or right to force others (i.e. employers) to PAY for something they did not agree upon. Isn’t that correct? After all, if YOU force a business like Hobby Lobby to pay for certain health costs are you not forcing YOUR morals on them? Sounds like a double standard to me. The truth is, until certain things are deemed illegal, we do NOT have a right to dictate to others what they can and cannot have. We also do NOT have the right to force a third party to PAY for those things desired by others.

Your last comment is totally false. What would have pushed this into an eventual single payer system is the forcing of a business to pay for things it is NOT willing to pay for. When a business is forced to do that, they will always try to find a way to eventually NOT have to pay it. You know what that means? Hobby Lobby, et al, would just NOT provide ANY healthcare coverage thus ensuring the implementation of a single payer system.

I up voted this simply becuase the spirit of debate is undoubtedly educating those who read this thread.

LOL, What exactly is a "religious surgery"?

Some religions have a surgery that they preform, I.E circum. Others will do things like acupuncture etc.

A surgery that they give because their belief is they have to have it

There is a lot of miss information on this topic. I can tell who watches the news for the information and the ones who look at the Supreme Court ruling! There was nothing in the ruling about religion. The Court was carefull not to bring that into the mix. The miss information being handed out is on purpose.

Maj Ian Dews, to answer your question about an employer who refuses to transfusions, doctors, etc, my question to you is if you knew that going in, why the hell would you accept a position in that company? And if you didn't know it going in, shame on you. Employers should have a right to decide who will work for them and who won't and what they will provide and what they won't. You as an applicant have a right to know this before you apply for a position or if not then, during your interview, you should ask those questions. You the applicant make the decision whether or not you'll work for an employer, not the other way around. They offer you a job, you decide to accept or not. That's the free market system. And it's worked pretty well for a couple hundred years.

Quite frankly, everything the government touches get's screwed up. They are not a business, most of them, including our president has never earned a paycheck outside of politics, they have absolutely no concept of free enterprise, all they want is to control everything and everyone.

MSG Zohfeld - so that's why lawsuits against lesbian/gays are already being filed?

They have that right.
Before Obamacare companies chose to cover what best fit their business and beliefs.
If a company is opposed to certain medical care based on their religious beliefs that it is a sin, they have a right not to be compelled to sin.