JustUsBoys.com gay porn forum

logo

remove these banner ads by becoming a JUB Supporter.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 123 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 191
  1. #51

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by CoolBlue71 View Post
    This decision was not a surprise.

    What also is evident is that Affordable Care Act, boasted by the website @ http://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/rights/ , "[puts consumers back in charge] of their health care. Under the law, a new “Patient’s Bill of Rights” gives the American people the stability and flexibility they need to make informed choices about their health," was the wrong approach by the 109th Congress. President Obama sold out liberals and they being the base of the Democratic Party (which is typical now of Democratic presidents) that catapulted him to the 2008 Democratic nomination and were critical to electing him to the presidency of the United States. This Democratic Party has sold out, become "The New Republicans" (as Bill Maher termed them), and should not be (and they are not) surprised by this U.S. Supreme Court decision catering to the right-wing Christians.

    Single payer has been the answer all along. That healthcare should be handled not from an employment-dependent level but from a governmental level. (Our elected officials in Washington, D.C. have the kind of health insurance we should all have throughout the United States. They're well taken care of for their health needs.) So, Hobby Lobby and the U.S. Supreme Court have helped illuminate this truth.
    The fact that you dare not call it what it is, socialized medicine" speaks volumes. The need to obscure the issue by calling it "single payer", without disclosing who the payer is, results from the fact that Americans have never wanted socialism or communism. Of course, of course, the entire welfare class and the new Democrats streaming over the border want health care handed to them at the expense of others. But the proposed victims of your plan are not eager to sacrifice our great health care system for a mediocre one at the expense of the increasingly fewer taxpayers.

  2. #52
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,662

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    Honestly considering the requirement that a business prove that they have such religious beliefs
    I'm not aware that there is a "requirement" that companies "prove" what the corporation believes. How does a corporation "prove" a religious belief? For that matter, how can any person "prove" what he believes? Statements written into a corporate document are written by individuals, who are usually constantly changing, and who usually simply copy over what the previous document said. Dozens of "straight" Republicans who have repeatedly stated their religious objections to homosexuality have been caught with their pants down with a man. Are we to accept their stated beliefs as their religious conviction?

    Beliefs are personal, constantly-changing things. They are based on life experiences. How do we know when the corporation's exposure to life experiences alters its opinions? If a female corporation should become pregnant and face the delivery of an unwanted child, will that affect the corporation's religious convictions about birth control?

    Hobby Lobby's belief that IUDs are abortifacients is scientifically wrong. Why are they allowed to impose known misperceptions and falsities about health care on their employees? Why is my employer's stupidity about health care allowed to interfere with the medical truth when it comes to my health? Why is a female employee with panhypopituitarism not permitted to treat her disease with estrogen hormone replacement, because her employer objects to birth control?

    Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community. Indeed, by law, no religion-based criterion can restrict the work force of for-profit corporations...The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention. One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight.

    -Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    combined with the requirement of unanimous consent of the ownership
    There is NO requirement for "unanimous consent of the ownership." It is unclear from the Supreme Court's ruling how corporations will define their religious beliefs. Presumably, the CEO of companies will set his or her own personal religious beliefs as the company beliefs, and these personal beliefs of one person will then be imposed upon the employees.


    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    I find it highly unlikely that very many companies could take advantage of this. Its really going to narrow down to the small number of companies owned by a single family or group. And even then its not a universal solution that gets you out of any law, it only forces the state to seek the least intrusive solution to its valid interests.
    Four of the justices of the Supreme Court disagree with you (rather vehemently, it seems, from their dissenting opinions). Ginsburg pointed out in her dissent that Mars Inc. (with 72,000 employees and $33 billion in revenue) and Cargill Inc. (with 140,000 employees and $136 billion in revenue) among many others qualify as "closely held" companies free to impose a corporate religion on their employees.


    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    Religious freedom has not allowed individuals to sacrifice virgins, skirt drug laws or parents to deny life saving treatment to dependent children, the same would apply to any company.
    "Religious freedom" has traditionally been limited by the courts when it threatened other rights of people. With this decision, the Supreme Court has expanded the definition of "religious freedom." Corporations are now free to compel employees conform to the religious beliefs of one or more owners.

    Religious freedom was the primary argument against civil rights. It is the primary argument against gay rights. Until now, corporations were not permitted to impose the religious convictions of the owners on employees. The precedent established with Hobby Lobby is that this is now legal behavior. As Ginsberg said, this is a decision of "startling breadth."



    “Until this litigation, no decision of this Court recognized a for-profit corporation’s qualification for a religious exemption. . . . The exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities. As Chief Justice Marshall observed nearly two centuries ago, a corporation is ‘an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law.’ ”

    -Ruth Bader Ginsburg

  3. #53
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,662

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Special K View Post
    I think that proposition would have been a hard sell for President Obama and his administration
    As it turned out, not a single Republican voted for the plan that they, themselves, devised.

    I appreciate that it was not obvious at the time that Republicans would so vehemently oppose their own ideas. I respect that Obama was valiantly attempting a remarkable bipartisanship with the ACA.

    But, in retrospect, it now seems as though America could have achieved true, cost-effect, universal health care. What a shame that we have Obamacare/Romneycare instead.
    Last edited by T-Rexx; July 1st, 2014 at 10:13 AM.

  4. #54
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,662

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninja108 View Post
    If anyone thinks this ruling won't be used to go after laws that protect the LGBT community, not to mention other groups, you're fooling yourselves.
    So true.

    Those bakeries with religious convictions against making wedding cakes for gay weddings are now vindicated.

  5. #55
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,895
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    Why not just repeal the Religious Meddling Entrenchment Act passed back in '93?

    Also, get rid of the stupid exemption for organisations.

    Also, didn't Roe v. Wade establish the right to an abortion in the private sphere? That was decided by 7 men out of 9 men. Maybe that should be repealed now that there are a few women on the court?
    What becomes more and more clear is that we need a different set of definitions for organizations. "Corporation" covers far too much ground when it includes Monsanto and DuPont, along with the Eden Conservancy and Doctors Without Borders, along with the GOP and Democratic national committees. The internet has the right idea: .com, .org, etc. make a good start; in law, we should also have .rel for religious and .chy for non-religious charity and .you'refuckedpol for political.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  6. #56
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,895
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    I'm not sure why Alito would write an opinion with which he disagreed. I think we can trust his word that he believes corporations can hold religious beliefs.
    Judges and justices write opinions with which they disagree all the time -- in fact, that's their duty. It isn't relevant what they believe personally, their job is to apply the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    And Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor were careful to point out how broad this ruling really is.
    I read what Ginsburg wrote, ad she's playing conspiracy theorist. Alito handed the Court the tests to use, and those tests make this very narrow. Not narrow enough, because religious exemptions should only be handed to organizations with religion as a primary function, but current law makes establishing that distinction a real tangle.

    I'd go with a law that requires any corporation getting such an exemption to set out a plan to go not-for-profit within three years, or pay a penalty, for the simple reason that if religion is such a primary purpose of the organization, it doesn't belong in the for-profit sector.

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    She based her opinion on the fact that this is the first time in history that any court has found that a corporation can have religious beliefs - and that corporations are free to impose those beliefs on their employees. As Ginsberg points out, that determination has "startling breadth" that will come to affect many aspects of law, even beyond health care and the ACA.
    Corporations whose owners have such beliefs ought to be required to make those beliefs clear up front. She has a definite point with the employee issue, which is why if the Court is going to go this route, then the government has an obligation to step up and provide such coverage.

    If we had a rational Congress, the response should be to compile a list of all the items of medical and health care that could possibly be objected to by anyone's religion, put them in a "basket", and make a single-payer plan to cover them. If in the future a religious objection should be raised against something not on the list, it should get promptly moved to the "basket".

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    Alito most emphatically did NOT "follow precedent." SCOTUS has established an entirely new precedent with this ruling - that corporations can hold religious beliefs. "Closely-held" is a meaningless term. It is logically absurd to claim that some corporations can have religious beliefs, while others may not, based on an undefined and nebulous number of stock holders, whose religious beliefs are not necessarily even known.
    "Closely held" is hardly meaningless; it's defined by law. With that definition, your objections disappear; for starters, there aren't any stockholders because a closely held corporation isn't publicly traded; and as Alito set out, the views of the five or fewer owners have to be unanimous.

    Alito doesn't say that corporations can have religious beliefs; he says that people do, and when just a handful of people own a corporation in its entirety and those people are unanimous in their religious beliefs, the "beliefs" of the corporation are the beliefs of those few. Plainly, if there are more than just five owners, and they have more than just one unanimous belief, the corporation has no beliefs on which it may get an exemption. So for publicly-traded corporations, all it would take would be for people with other religious beliefs to buy a chunk of stock and oppose the claim to a religious objection.

    And that should work, because religious beliefs are not subject to vote, whether majority or stock majority; the religious beliefs of minority stockholders are just as sacrosanct as those of any others.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  7. #57
    Virginia Is for Lovers Alnitak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Maryland
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    5,011
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Benvolio View Post
    The fact that you dare not call it what it is, socialized medicine" speaks volumes. The need to obscure the issue by calling it "single payer", without disclosing who the payer is, results from the fact that Americans have never wanted socialism or communism. Of course, of course, the entire welfare class and the new Democrats streaming over the border want health care handed to them at the expense of others. But the proposed victims of your plan are not eager to sacrifice our great health care system for a mediocre one at the expense of the increasingly fewer taxpayers.
    Um, the polls actually support the single payer option...



    Your aversion to socialism has more to do with opposing Russian expansionism during the Cold War than wanting the shitty private system of health care we currently have.

  8. #58
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,895
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by rareboy View Post
    Mess......at least Ginsburg sees the inherent dangers in this stupid ruling by the Catholic Boys club.

    For anyone not thinking that corporations will use this to discriminate against others...you are living in a fools' paradise. The right wing fundies are already toasting the decision as a way to push back against the homos.
    Anyone wanting to try it needs to read Kennedy's concurring opinion:

    In his concurring opinion, Kennedy said the decision "does not have the breadth and sweep ascribed to it by the respectful and powerful dissent."
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/30/supreme-court-hobby-lobby_n_5521444.html

    (BTW, if anyon can find the full text of Kennedy's opinion, I'd appreciate it -- after an hour of searching I can only find about a half page worth, and I know it was at least three pages long.)

    Why does Kennedy matter? Because he was the swing vote. And Kennedy is the one who looks at things through the lens of "dignity". He's going to look at the dignity of any shareholder with a religious view different than those speaking for a corporation, and throw out any claim that the corporation has a religious view if even one shareholder disagrees.

    That's just common sense: a corporation can only have a religious view if every last owner shares it; otherwise, the corporation has multiple religious views, likely conflicting, and there's no dignity for a shareholder if a corporation's directors are allowed to act contrary to that shareholder's religious views on a religious matter.

    So anyone thinking this is opening a floodgate is going to crash and burn.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  9. #59
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,895
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    Honestly considering the requirement that a business prove that they have such religious beliefs to be begin with, both the plaintiffs in this case had a long history in their company statements and records showing it, combined with the requirement of unanimous consent of the ownership; I find it highly unlikely that very many companies could take advantage of this. Its really going to narrow down to the small number of companies owned by a single family or group. And even then its not a universal solution that gets you out of any law, it only forces the state to seek the least intrusive solution to its valid interests.

    Religious freedom has not allowed individuals to sacrifice virgins, skirt drug laws or parents to deny life saving treatment to dependent children, the same would apply to any company.
    This got me thinking: would it be possible under the commerce clause to require that companies operating in multiple states have owners in those states? That would certainly dilute the religious opinion of the owners, to say nothing of the fact that it would increas the number of owners past the number five.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  10. #60
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,895
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by darden View Post
    what religious statute makes taking viagra a sin?
    That's a good point. While the Bible may say that God is in charge of the womb, it says nothing about penises or erections.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  11. #61
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,895
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by rareboy View Post
    Quoted for truth again.

    The closely held 'Christian' corporations, prompted by the Bryan Fischers of this world are already taking aim.

    In fundamentalist churches all over the US today...the homophobes are thanking God for the US making the old testament and the Pauline doctrine the one true State religion.

    Jesus wept.
    I haven't seen Faithful America weigh in yet, but I'd be happy to boycott such "Christian" companies and tell them to their faces that I'm doing it because of Jesus. If they were obnoxious enough, I'd even say, "I rebuke you in Jesus' name!"
    I could say it in Koine Greek and maybe they'd think I was speaking in tongues... till someone translated.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  12. #62
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,895
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Benvolio View Post
    The fact that you dare not call it what it is, socialized medicine" speaks volumes. The need to obscure the issue by calling it "single payer", without disclosing who the payer is, results from the fact that Americans have never wanted socialism or communism. Of course, of course, the entire welfare class and the new Democrats streaming over the border want health care handed to them at the expense of others. But the proposed victims of your plan are not eager to sacrifice our great health care system for a mediocre one at the expense of the increasingly fewer taxpayers.
    Americans love socialism. We have a socialist military, socialist roads, socialist water supplies, socialist police.....

    Every last American alive is already handed health care "at the expense of others" -- that's what a profit-driven system does, it puts our health second to their profit.

    If you really believed in free markets, you'd be assessing the ACAA for what it is: a giveaway to corporations by the government, which stifles free enterprise.

    BTW, we do NOT have "a great health care system", we have a piss-poor one. We used to have a great one, before insurance companies got involved; back then, I could walk into a doctor's office with no appointment and expect to be seen within the hour (usually less).

    BTW2, we have "increasingly fewer taxpayers" because corporations view the government as their cash cow to guarantee profits by allowing them to pay far less than labor is worth, so they can shuffle their employees off to suck at government programs. If they'd pay today's equivalent of the former minimum wage, the number of non-payers of federal income tax would shrink nearly to single digits of the population.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  13. #63
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,895
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    Hobby Lobby's belief that IUDs are abortifacients is scientifically wrong.
    Now THERE is a point I've yet to see made in the dozens of blogs and more dozens of articles I've read.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  14. #64
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,895
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    So true.

    Those bakeries with religious convictions against making wedding cakes for gay weddings are now vindicated.
    Yeah -- and that sucks.

    Congress needs to clarify the law, and invent new classifications so we can distinguish between all the radically different things we now lump together as "corporations".

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  15. #65

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Alnitak View Post
    Um, the polls actually support the single payer option...



    Your aversion to socialism has more to do with opposing Russian expansionism during the Cold War than wanting the shitty private system of health care we currently have.
    To evaluate this you would need to see all the questions and presention. I doubt if half the people understand what "single payer" refers to. The purpose of the phrase is to obfuscate; other wise they would call it socialized, or free health care, or government paid etc. Since a majority of taxpayers pay no income tax, their willingness to pay higher taxes means nothing. It still leaves a small and dwindling minority paying the entire burden while losing their current superlative care.
    Last edited by Benvolio; July 1st, 2014 at 01:37 PM.

  16. #66

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    The military and police are not socialism. They are an exercise of state power and not a means of production.
    Roads and water are not socialism because they are natural monopolies, not amenable to competition. It would not be feasible to have competing water systems going to each home. Or competing roads.

  17. #67

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    ^I'd prefer Jesus clean house... again. What an impotent deity.

  18. #68
    Lil' Demon Beggar MakeDigitalLove's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Voorhees
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    1,859

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    When I saw this today it really depressed me. There is just so much wrong with this it is unreal.

  19. #69
    auribus teneo lupum Stardreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Over the Hedge and Under the Hill
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Married
    Posts
    3,142

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    "Religious freedom" has traditionally been limited by the courts when it threatened other rights of people. With this decision, the Supreme Court has expanded the definition of "religious freedom." Corporations are now free to compel employees conform to the religious beliefs of one or more owners.
    Actually it was congress who expanded it in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that the court based its decision on. The RFRA effectively states that to infringe on religious freedom the state must, 1 have a demonstrable public interest in doing so and 2 provide the least intrusive means of 'achieving' that interest.
    Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right. H. L. Mencken US editor (1880 - 1956)

  20. #70
    auribus teneo lupum Stardreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Over the Hedge and Under the Hill
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Married
    Posts
    3,142

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    So true.

    Those bakeries with religious convictions against making wedding cakes for gay weddings are now vindicated.
    I suspect that is where this will go next, the states will have to justify the public accommodation laws.
    Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right. H. L. Mencken US editor (1880 - 1956)

  21. #71
    auribus teneo lupum Stardreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Over the Hedge and Under the Hill
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Married
    Posts
    3,142

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    Judges and justices write opinions with which they disagree all the time -- in fact, that's their duty. It isn't relevant what they believe personally, their job is to apply the law.



    I read what Ginsburg wrote, ad she's playing conspiracy theorist. Alito handed the Court the tests to use, and those tests make this very narrow. Not narrow enough, because religious exemptions should only be handed to organizations with religion as a primary function, but current law makes establishing that distinction a real tangle.

    I'd go with a law that requires any corporation getting such an exemption to set out a plan to go not-for-profit within three years, or pay a penalty, for the simple reason that if religion is such a primary purpose of the organization, it doesn't belong in the for-profit sector.



    Corporations whose owners have such beliefs ought to be required to make those beliefs clear up front. She has a definite point with the employee issue, which is why if the Court is going to go this route, then the government has an obligation to step up and provide such coverage.

    If we had a rational Congress, the response should be to compile a list of all the items of medical and health care that could possibly be objected to by anyone's religion, put them in a "basket", and make a single-payer plan to cover them. If in the future a religious objection should be raised against something not on the list, it should get promptly moved to the "basket".



    "Closely held" is hardly meaningless; it's defined by law. With that definition, your objections disappear; for starters, there aren't any stockholders because a closely held corporation isn't publicly traded; and as Alito set out, the views of the five or fewer owners have to be unanimous.

    Alito doesn't say that corporations can have religious beliefs; he says that people do, and when just a handful of people own a corporation in its entirety and those people are unanimous in their religious beliefs, the "beliefs" of the corporation are the beliefs of those few. Plainly, if there are more than just five owners, and they have more than just one unanimous belief, the corporation has no beliefs on which it may get an exemption. So for publicly-traded corporations, all it would take would be for people with other religious beliefs to buy a chunk of stock and oppose the claim to a religious objection.

    And that should work, because religious beliefs are not subject to vote, whether majority or stock majority; the religious beliefs of minority stockholders are just as sacrosanct as those of any others.
    Found out today that there are some very big companies that are closely held.
    Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right. H. L. Mencken US editor (1880 - 1956)

  22. #72
    auribus teneo lupum Stardreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Over the Hedge and Under the Hill
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Married
    Posts
    3,142

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    One analysis I read today pointed out that this may actually make it worse for the non-profit organization cases such as the Little Sisters for the Poor that is coming up. They are suing because they don't want to accept the Administration's accommodation to their religious objection to contraceptives which basically transfers the onus to the insurance companies. They don't want to have any support for contraception in their health plan even if it is being paid for by the government through the insurance agencies. BUT the court specifically pointed to that compromise as a valid potential response of addressing the Hobby Lobby case to meet the RFRA requirement of least intrusive. It would be the perfect framing of the issue to have the court deny the Little Sister's suit on the basis that the government has provided a means to address their compliant while still meeting the government interest.
    Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right. H. L. Mencken US editor (1880 - 1956)

  23. #73
    Virginia Is for Lovers Alnitak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Maryland
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    5,011
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Benvolio View Post
    The military and police are not socialism. They are an exercise of state power and not a means of production.
    Roads and water are not socialism because they are natural monopolies, not amenable to competition. It would not be feasible to have competing water systems going to each home. Or competing roads.
    Law and order are not only quantifiable services but they facilitate production, and some roads and water systems are indeed private, especially in the UK. It just so happens that the best and most reliable means to provide them are through the government.
    Last edited by Alnitak; July 1st, 2014 at 05:39 PM.

  24. #74
    Thankfully Liberal & Gay
    frankfrank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Illinois (Agent Provocateur and Refujiunderground you can do it)
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    15,292
    Blog Entries
    5

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    I think we can count on some new "religions" (which will also, conveniently, be involved in takeovers of some existing corporations, thanks to Fundies plying them tons of money) which will be White supremacist in nature, as well as some of the "closely held corporations" now allowed this exemption to creep toward White supremacy in their beliefs. The Supreme Court decision may eventually allow such corporations-with-religious-beliefs to entirely deny ALL health insurance to Blacks, women, ho-ma-sex-yulls, and whoever isn't included in their Small Tent.

    I can imagine precedent being used enough that they can warp their religion into something anti-woman if they wanted to, and eventually even get a full blessing to choose not to hire or serve women. Of course such a company would probably be Boycotted out of business, but you can't stop stupid.

    Some of the early shots were fired in the coming Second Civil War yesterday, starting about a year ago when the Voting Rights Act had important provisions struck down.
    "All legal U. S. residents who are 18 years or older, shall have an unconditional right to vote." - 28th Amendment, US Constitution?
    "But, hey, who cares about women and their rights when the religious liberty of a nationwide chain of arts and crafts stores is at stake?" - Daily Kos, 30 June 2014
    "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires" - Susan B. Anthony

  25. #75
    Thankfully Liberal & Gay
    frankfrank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Illinois (Agent Provocateur and Refujiunderground you can do it)
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    15,292
    Blog Entries
    5

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    Honestly considering the requirement that a business prove that they have such religious beliefs to be begin with, both the plaintiffs in this case had a long history in their company statements and records showing it
    I look for a case, eventually, to make it to SCOTUS, which (in a much more formal, much more legalistic and precise way) asks the question
    Hey, WE'RE a corporation too - so WE are a human being like Hobby Lobby - why do they get to make this decision and have it upheld as an acceptable practice, when we cannot because we have more than five owners? After all, we just had a stockholder election, and the majority of the votes from those who bothered to vote said that we're within our rights to ban black people from all of our stores. Why do religious beliefs get a free pass, and we don't? The Constitution says that there shall be no laws establishing religion, so our stockholders should have the same say and the same privilege as a closely-held corporation has with its religious beliefs.
    Quote Originally Posted by darden View Post
    what religious statute makes taking viagra a sin?
    None, but Viagra DOES PROMOTE RAMPANT PROMISCUITY, if only the Talibangelicals were consistent and used the same logic as they do about things like birth control, rape, etc. After all, procreative sex is **RARE** - once an act of procreative sex has been successful, and if there aren't extra-relational/extramarital things going on, it is about a *YEAR* before procreative sex can happen again.

    VIAGRA (and similar drugs) PROMOTES NON-PROCREATIONAL SEX!!! Not to mention that the heterosexual men who use it are usually banging women who are too old to pump out more babies, because there is a strong generational skew in the market for these pharma.

    I have no doubt that the Hobby Lobby policy came from people who feel that birth control is a sin, and I think it's easy to assume that they are likely to think that not only MUST all those babies be born (but SCREW YOU once you pop out of the womb), but all sex must always happen within marriage AND the relationship must be a "procreational" one.

    So if Viagra promotes otherwise, why are they perfectly fine with that (and vasectomies!!) being under coverage mandates? The hypocrisy, and the blatant war on women, speaks volumes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    Why does Kennedy matter? Because he was the swing vote.
    Put that idea to bed NOW. FOREVER. I get upset every time I hear Kennedy referred to as a "swing vote." I can't remember any case in RECENT YEARS - there probably are one or two but I'm not about to do all the research - where Kennedy FAILED to vote with Thomas and Scalia on anything. OTHER THAN votes regarding gay civil rights...ONLY.

    Outside of gay civil rights, for Chrissakes, ROBERTS is more of a swing vote. He voted otherwise on the Obamacare mandate.
    "All legal U. S. residents who are 18 years or older, shall have an unconditional right to vote." - 28th Amendment, US Constitution?
    "But, hey, who cares about women and their rights when the religious liberty of a nationwide chain of arts and crafts stores is at stake?" - Daily Kos, 30 June 2014
    "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires" - Susan B. Anthony

  26. #76
    Virginia Is for Lovers Alnitak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Maryland
    Orientation
    Gay
    Posts
    5,011
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Benvolio View Post
    To evaluate this you would need to see all the questions and presention. I doubt if half the people understand what "single payer" refers to. The purpose of the phrase is to obfuscate; other wise they would call it socialized, or free health care, or government paid etc. Since a majority of taxpayers pay no income tax, their willingness to pay higher taxes means nothing. It still leaves a small and dwindling minority paying the entire burden while losing their current superlative care.
    Blah blah blah blah blah...

    Conservative sees poll. Conservative says "yeah, well, but, maybe, no, perhaps..."

  27. #77
    JUB Addict hotatlboi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Atlanta
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    7,808

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    It doesn't address any others
    Wrong, it most definitely does, both implicitly and explicitly.

    Implicitly by saying this decision does not apply to other kinds of religious beliefs seeking similar exemptions, and Alito even lists several explicit examples of such beliefs (opposition to vaccines and blood transfusions).

    That is the most illogical thing about the decision. The Court has determined it is now the ultimate religious authority in the country, and will be ruling on what religious beliefs are sacred enough to warrant their "protection" from laws that conflict with those beliefs in the exercise of commerce by for profit corporations.
    Last edited by hotatlboi; July 1st, 2014 at 08:41 PM.

  28. #78
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,662

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Benvolio View Post
    To evaluate this you would need to see all the questions and presention. I doubt if half the people understand what "single payer" refers to. The purpose of the phrase is to obfuscate; other wise they would call it socialized, or free health care, or government paid etc. Since a majority of taxpayers pay no income tax, their willingness to pay higher taxes means nothing. It still leaves a small and dwindling minority paying the entire burden while losing their current superlative care.
    You don't seem to get how the system worked before Obamacare. Prior to Obamacare, America had the most heavily socialized medical system on earth. Caregivers were required to treat all comers, regardless of ability to pay. The only way they could do that was by massively overcharging the people with insurance. That's why we had $50 aspirin tablets in America.

    That's as "socialized" as socialism gets. But it was socialism based on fraud - somebody had to be cheated in order for expenses to get covered - and that was massively inefficient. That's why limited health care in America cost two to three times as much as comprehensive health care in Europe, outcomes were comparatively poor here, and the American economy suffered from wasting a higher percentage of GDP on healthcare than any other country on earth.

    You are pining for the old days of massively inefficient socialism. [This is one of the reasons I often point out how non-conservative is the Republican Party. You guys don't want mandatory private insurance, with market forces helping somewhat to keep costs controlled (i.e., Obamacare). You guys want socialism, even if it requires fraud.]


    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    Actually it was congress who expanded it in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that the court based its decision on. The RFRA effectively states that to infringe on religious freedom the state must, 1 have a demonstrable public interest in doing so and 2 provide the least intrusive means of 'achieving' that interest.
    The RFRA was never intended to apply to for-profit corporations. The framers of RFRA never imagined the Supreme Court would turn companies into churches.


    Quote Originally Posted by frankfrank View Post
    I look for a case, eventually, to make it to SCOTUS, which (in a much more formal, much more legalistic and precise way) asks the question


    Hey, WE'RE a corporation too - so WE are a human being like Hobby Lobby - why do they get to make this decision and have it upheld as an acceptable practice, when we cannot because we have more than five owners? After all, we just had a stockholder election, and the majority of the votes from those who bothered to vote said that we're within our rights to ban black people from all of our stores. Why do religious beliefs get a free pass, and we don't? The Constitution says that there shall be no laws establishing religion, so our stockholders should have the same say and the same privilege as a closely-held as a closely-held corporation has with its religious beliefs.
    Ginsburg addressed that issue in her dissent. She pointed out the illogic of claiming some corporations can have religious convictions and some not, based on who owns how much of the stock. If there are five primary owners, then a for-profit corporation can be a religion, but not if there are six. And corporations can vacillate between being a church and being only a corporation as the owners buy and sell stock amongst themselves. Whether or not a given corporation is a church will depend on what day of the week it is.

    The premise is so illogical that it probably cannot stand. Either this ruling will need to be overturned by some distant future decision by SCOTUS, or ALL corporations will need to be acknowledged as churches as well. And, of course, the latter is more likely.

  29. #79
    JUB Addict chrisrobin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,069

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    .
    Corporations have religious beliefs... the worship of mammon.

    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

  30. #80
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,895
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    I suspect that is where this will go next, the states will have to justify the public accommodation laws.
    I wonder if their business licenses require them to treat everyone equally?

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  31. #81
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,895
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    Found out today that there are some very big companies that are closely held.
    I know. Hopefully Alito's unanimity test will preclude any that are publicly traded from getting in on this.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  32. #82
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,895
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    One analysis I read today pointed out that this may actually make it worse for the non-profit organization cases such as the Little Sisters for the Poor that is coming up. They are suing because they don't want to accept the Administration's accommodation to their religious objection to contraceptives which basically transfers the onus to the insurance companies. They don't want to have any support for contraception in their health plan even if it is being paid for by the government through the insurance agencies. BUT the court specifically pointed to that compromise as a valid potential response of addressing the Hobby Lobby case to meet the RFRA requirement of least intrusive. It would be the perfect framing of the issue to have the court deny the Little Sister's suit on the basis that the government has provided a means to address their compliant while still meeting the government interest.
    It will make it harder, but they don't have much of a case anyway -- I doubt any court is going to regard them as participating im support of contraceptives when they aren't paying for it.

    But it's another reason to just go ahead and provide government coverage for anything that might become a religious issue.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  33. #83
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,895
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by frankfrank View Post
    I look for a case, eventually, to make it to SCOTUS, which (in a much more formal, much more legalistic and precise way) asks the question

    Hey, WE'RE a corporation too - so WE are a human being like Hobby Lobby - why do they get to make this decision and have it upheld as an acceptable practice, when we cannot because we have more than five owners? After all, we just had a stockholder election, and the majority of the votes from those who bothered to vote said that we're within our rights to ban black people from all of our stores. Why do religious beliefs get a free pass, and we don't? The Constitution says that there shall be no laws establishing religion, so our stockholders should have the same say and the same privilege as a closely-held corporation has with its religious beliefs.
    Stockholder elections wouldn't count; that would be endorsing the idea that it's legitimate to vote away people's rights, because the majority would be exercising the minority's religious freedom for them over their objections.

    Quote Originally Posted by frankfrank View Post
    Put that idea to bed NOW. FOREVER. I get upset every time I hear Kennedy referred to as a "swing vote." I can't remember any case in RECENT YEARS - there probably are one or two but I'm not about to do all the research - where Kennedy FAILED to vote with Thomas and Scalia on anything. OTHER THAN votes regarding gay civil rights...ONLY.

    Outside of gay civil rights, for Chrissakes, ROBERTS is more of a swing vote. He voted otherwise on the Obamacare mandate.
    But he was the swing vote this time. The articles I read before hand were all certain how everyone but Kennedy were gong to vote; no one was quite sure where he would come down.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  34. #84
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Middle of Snowwhere.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    16,061
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    I wonder if a union can have legal personhood. In that case what happens if the company is orthodox and the union is reform?
    Americans need to keep their guns so they can protect themselves from gun violence just like Nancy Lanza did. And like Chris Kyle did. And like Gabby Giffords did. And like Tom Clements did. And like Michael Piemonte. And Joseph Wilcox.

  35. #85
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,895
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    I wonder if a union can have legal personhood. In that case what happens if the company is orthodox and the union is reform?
    I love it!

    If unions incorporate, then they have as much personhood as a typical corporation, because they are one.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  36. #86
    Thankfully Liberal & Gay
    frankfrank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Illinois (Agent Provocateur and Refujiunderground you can do it)
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    15,292
    Blog Entries
    5

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    But he was the swing vote this time. The articles I read before hand were all certain how everyone but Kennedy were gong to vote; no one was quite sure where he would come down.
    The articles were written by people who so believe the prevailing blather about Kennedy being a swing vote, that they still believed it. Kennedy is every bit as predictable as Scalia. If it's an issue that can at all be interpreted as a "Democrat or Republican" issue, you can bet that, in all cases (EXCEPT gay civil rights, where he is indeed a swing vote), he WILL vote on the "Republican" side.

    If the issue is murky, and if it's not an issue that is blatantly political, THAT is where Kennedy can be a swing vote. But also in those cases, MORE than just Kennedy is likely to be a swing vote, and he won't be the only guy who can't be predicted. One example of such a case that I'd cite would be the New London, Connecticut eminent domain case from about a decade ago, where very few of the nine voted as would have been expected.

    I haven't seen any proof in recent years that he's a swing vote on anything else. Not only in the 5-4 decisions (which are the most common, and you can know in advance how all nine will vote), but in the strange 9-0's and other outcomes, he ALWAYS votes with the conservatives.

    Indeed, as asked in another thread, he's throwing us gays a bone. He's certainly been pretty "useless" otherwise.
    "All legal U. S. residents who are 18 years or older, shall have an unconditional right to vote." - 28th Amendment, US Constitution?
    "But, hey, who cares about women and their rights when the religious liberty of a nationwide chain of arts and crafts stores is at stake?" - Daily Kos, 30 June 2014
    "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires" - Susan B. Anthony

  37. #87
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,662

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Benvolio View Post
    The military and police are not socialism. They are an exercise of state power and not a means of production.
    Roads and water are not socialism because they are natural monopolies, not amenable to competition. It would not be feasible to have competing water systems going to each home. Or competing roads.
    This is nonsense.

    "Roads and water are natural monopolies?" Natural? Not amenable to competition? You seem to be saying that there are some problems that cannot be addressed by markets. Yeah, obviously. That's why they need to be dealt with socially.

    "Natural monopoly" = "socialism"

    It's interesting to see what a socialist you are, Benvolio.

  38. #88

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    This is nonsense.

    "Roads and water are natural monopolies?" Natural? Not amenable to competition? You seem to be saying that there are some problems that cannot be addressed by markets. Yeah, obviously. That's why they need to be dealt with socially.

    "Natural monopoly" = "socialism"

    It's interesting to see what a socialist you are, Benvolio.
    Since you are unfamiliar with basic principles of economics, I suggest you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

    The concept is simple you cannot reasonably have competing water systems with pipes into homes.The competition would make the expense much higher, not less. It would make no sense for a country to have two armies competing with each other. A city could not have two police systems competing with each other in the same area.

    Your argument is that military, police, water and roads are--you say--socialism, all countries which have them are socialist. But since all countries have them, your argument is that all counties are socialist. That is nonsense. But if you want to define socialism that way, then you just need a different word to distinguish the Democrat party economics--Marxist is the word you are searching for.

  39. #89
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,662

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Benvolio View Post
    Since you are unfamiliar with basic principles of economics, I suggest you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

    The concept is simple you cannot reasonably have competing water systems with pipes into homes.The competition would make the expense much higher, not less. It would make no sense for a country to have two armies competing with each other. A city could not have two police systems competing with each other in the same area.
    Yes, exactly.

    Capitalism can only address certain issues in society. Many aspect of society only work well as socialized institutions.


    Quote Originally Posted by Benvolio View Post
    Your argument is that military, police, water and roads are--you say--socialism, all countries which have them are socialist. But since all countries have them, your argument is that all counties are socialist.
    Yes, exactly.

    Of course all countries are socialist. It would not be possible to live without socialism , which is government ownership and administration of some of the institutions of civilization.
    Last edited by T-Rexx; July 2nd, 2014 at 04:27 AM.

  40. #90
    auribus teneo lupum Stardreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Over the Hedge and Under the Hill
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Married
    Posts
    3,142

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by frankfrank View Post
    After all, we just had a stockholder election, and the majority of the votes from those who bothered to vote said that we're within our rights to ban black people from all of our stores.
    The court is basing this decision of RFRA and RFRA does not say that religion overrides the law, it only requires that the state show the law has a good reason for existing and that the state must provide a reasonable accommodation for the religious belief if there is one. Civil rights laws have good reasons for existing and allowing businesses to ban all black people from their stores is NOT a reasonable accommodation and wouldn't pass the test.

    In the Hobby Lobby case, they were not seeking to ban all contraceptives from their insurance plans, they only wanted to ban 4 of the 20 some odd methods available. There are a few reasonable accommodations available, including one the government itself is already offering non-profits, that could address this while preserving the laws intent to provide contraceptive care. That is why the court ruled in their favor.

    The little I've been able to read and hear of Ginsburg's dissenting comments the more it sounds like she is playing to the opinion of the far left crowd than actually doing any analysis of what the court did in the majority ruling.
    Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right. H. L. Mencken US editor (1880 - 1956)

  41. #91
    JUB Addict chrisrobin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    8,069

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    .
    Is Scalia law the same as sharia law?

    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

  42. #92

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    Yes, exactly.

    Capitalism can only address certain issues in society. Many aspect of society only work well as socialized institutions.




    Yes, exactly.

    Of course all countries are socialist. It would not be possible to live without socialism , which is government ownership and administration of some of the institutions of civilization.
    You are missing the point. Historically, socialism is used to distinguish economic systems in which the government controls or owns the means of production, as distinguished from economies in which economic freedom allows the means of production to be innovated owned, developed by individuals and groups. It is free enterprise/capitalism which has raised the industrialized countries from nearly universal poverty.
    Applying the word "socialism" to all systems just confuses the issue, it does not alter the importance of the distinction between systems. It does not lessen the importance of economic freedom and it does not make government control or ownership a workable system. But I agree that Marxism is a better description of liberal policies than socialism.

  43. #93
    JUB Addict vulgar_newcomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    St. Petersburg
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    2,686

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Hobby Lobby strong religious values don't extend to what they invest in. I wonder how the court can explain this?

    Hobby Lobby's founders have made it clear that any abortion and certain contraceptives are unacceptable in their eyes, yet the company's 401(k) plan has millions of dollars invested in funds that own the companies that make birth control methods including Plan B, the so-called "morning after" drug. "
    Such a load of corporate bullshit from a corrupt lobby bought out SCOTUS


    http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/01/inve...contraception/

  44. #94
    JUB Addict vulgar_newcomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    St. Petersburg
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    2,686

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    The kind of socialism Benovolio has no problem with is the sort that raises special tax money for the building, maintenance and up keep of professional for profit ball clubs. Grandma in Arlington TX is paying for the new Dallas cowboy stadium yet has no desire to ever see them or be able to pay in the parking lot fee anyway. Not unique to Dallas we have 3 of those joints here in Tampa where all the tax payers must pay for the rich owners.
    The sort of socialism that allows all the taxpayers to be forced to build expensive water processing facilities so that the mega corporate resorts in the hot dry Mojave desert can shoot millions of gallons of water into the air from there man made lakes. Sin City.
    The sort of socialism that allows the area where Universal Studios sits on near Orlando Florida to be considered "A blighted neighborhood" qualifying it and adjoining country club gated communities millions of dollars in tax breaks.
    The sort of socialism that allows Wal-mart to build a super center with tax breaks then forces the local residents to raise taxes to expand the road system to accommodate their business when congestion follows.
    Last edited by vulgar_newcomer; July 2nd, 2014 at 09:39 AM.

  45. #95

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by vulgar_newcomer View Post
    The kind of socialism Benovolio has no problem with is the sort that raises special tax money for the building, maintenance and up keep of professional for profit ball clubs. Grandma in Arlington TX is paying for the new Dallas cowboy stadium yet has no desire to ever see them or be able to pay in the parking lot fee anyway. Not unique to Dallas we have 3 of those joints here in Tampa where all the tax payers must pay for the rich owners.
    The sort of socialism that allows all the taxpayers to be forced to build expensive water processing facilities so that the mega corporate resorts in the hot dry Mojave desert can shoot millions of gallons of water into the air from there man made lakes. Sin City.
    The sort of socialism that allows the area where Universal Studios sits on near Orlando Florida to be considered "A blighted neighborhood" qualifying it and adjoining country club gated communities millions of dollars in tax breaks.
    The sort of socialism that allows Wal-mart to build a super center with tax breaks then forces the local residents to raise taxes to expand the road system to accommodate their business when congestion follows.
    Where did I ever approve any of those things?

  46. #96
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,895
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by frankfrank View Post
    The articles were written by people who so believe the prevailing blather about Kennedy being a swing vote, that they still believed it. Kennedy is every bit as predictable as Scalia. If it's an issue that can at all be interpreted as a "Democrat or Republican" issue, you can bet that, in all cases (EXCEPT gay civil rights, where he is indeed a swing vote), he WILL vote on the "Republican" side.

    If the issue is murky, and if it's not an issue that is blatantly political, THAT is where Kennedy can be a swing vote. But also in those cases, MORE than just Kennedy is likely to be a swing vote, and he won't be the only guy who can't be predicted. One example of such a case that I'd cite would be the New London, Connecticut eminent domain case from about a decade ago, where very few of the nine voted as would have been expected.

    I haven't seen any proof in recent years that he's a swing vote on anything else. Not only in the 5-4 decisions (which are the most common, and you can know in advance how all nine will vote), but in the strange 9-0's and other outcomes, he ALWAYS votes with the conservatives.

    Indeed, as asked in another thread, he's throwing us gays a bone. He's certainly been pretty "useless" otherwise.
    That you analyze the Court by Republican and Democrat shows just how deep the corruption is. Unfortunately it's mostly accurate, as the liberal and reactionary justices vote according to what parts of the Constitution they like or don't like. Kennedy thankfully supported the Second Amendment in those cases, and has so far supported gay rights in those. How he went here is consistent; he'd rather expand individual rights than risk shrinking them, which actually makes him perhaps the only actual conservative on the Court.

    We really need more originalists (or whatever they call them) on the Court: a true originalist would never stand for the encroachment of government in the areas of police power and privacy; originalists would have sunk the entire Patriot Act, and slapped down the NSA vigorously. Instead, we get Obama, of all people, appointing federal judges who support that government encroachment and erosion of personal liberty and privacy.

    Oh -- and an originalist would never have supported corporations having free speech, because only human beings can have free speech. Here's an easy test the Court should use: if it can't eat beans, drink beer, and fart, it isn't capable of having rights, especialy political rights. No originalist would be fooled by the sloppy language that has made corporations "persons".

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  47. #97
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,895
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Benvolio View Post
    Since you are unfamiliar with basic principles of economics, I suggest you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

    The concept is simple you cannot reasonably have competing water systems with pipes into homes.The competition would make the expense much higher, not less. It would make no sense for a country to have two armies competing with each other. A city could not have two police systems competing with each other in the same area.
    Rubbish -- of course you could have competing water systems and roads; there's nothing "natural" about those monopolies any more than the de facto monopolies of cable companies and such.

    As for police and military, Milton Friedman sets out how not only those, but law could be personal commodities and not government functions. That you don't grant that shows that you really don't believe in the market.

    Quote Originally Posted by Benvolio View Post
    Your argument is that military, police, water and roads are--you say--socialism, all countries which have them are socialist. But since all countries have them, your argument is that all counties are socialist. That is nonsense. But if you want to define socialism that way, then you just need a different word to distinguish the Democrat party economics--Marxist is the word you are searching for.
    The Democrats are hardly Marxists -- they voted in a national pro-corporation health system, after all. No Marxist would ever have voted for the pile of crap generally called Obamacare.

    But because police and roads and even the military could be done by private entities, of course having the government do it is socialist.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  48. #98
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,895
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    Yes, exactly.

    Capitalism can only address certain issues in society. Many aspect of society only work well as socialized institutions.


    Yes, exactly.

    Of course all countries are socialist. It would not be possible to live without socialism , which is government ownership and administration of some of the institutions of civilization.
    When Benvolio invoked efficiency he lost the argument: capitalism as we have it is not efficient at all. For starters, it stifles free markets. But on current issues, if efficiency is the goal, then a single-payer, not-for-profit approach to medical care is the answer.

    Frak, for any patriot it's the answer; it's the only way to provide for all Americans, i.e. "We, the people". But today's mislabeled conservatives no longer believe in "We, the people", they believe in "We, the predators", where the people are just rubes to be milked for whatever possible.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  49. #99
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,895
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Benvolio View Post
    You are missing the point. Historically, socialism is used to distinguish economic systems in which the government controls or owns the means of production, as distinguished from economies in which economic freedom allows the means of production to be innovated owned, developed by individuals and groups. It is free enterprise/capitalism which has raised the industrialized countries from nearly universal poverty.
    Applying the word "socialism" to all systems just confuses the issue, it does not alter the importance of the distinction between systems. It does not lessen the importance of economic freedom and it does not make government control or ownership a workable system. But I agree that Marxism is a better description of liberal policies than socialism.
    So a government could own all the service companies and information companies? And the entire internet? and not be socialist....

    Despite your fantasies, liberals aren't Marxist, or they never would have passed the ACA, which is capitalism run amok: government in service to corporations.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

  50. #100
    Bammer's Papa
    Kulindahr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the foggy, damp, redneck Oregon coast
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Bisexual
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    101,895
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by vulgar_newcomer View Post
    Hobby Lobby strong religious values don't extend to what they invest in. I wonder how the court can explain this?



    Such a load of corporate bullshit from a corrupt lobby bought out SCOTUS


    http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/01/inve...contraception/
    Yes. In the GOP system, the Pharisees rule and Jesus is thrown out. Hypocrisy is now a virtue, and Mammon sits enshrined in the sanctuary.

    "Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

    --Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000

    *the number is now forty

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | About JustUsBoys.com | Site Map | RSS | Webmasters | Advertise | Link to JUB | Report A Bug on this Page

Visit our sister sites: Broke Straight Boys | CollegeDudes.com | CollegeBoyPhysicals.com | RocketTube
All models appearing on JustUsBoys.com were over 18 at the time of photography. The records for sexually explicit images required by U.S. 2257 are kept by the
individual producers of the images. The location of the records is available by clicking the Custodian of Records link at the bottom of each gallery page.
© 2012 JustUsBoys.com. The JustUsBoys.com name and logo are registered trademarks. Labeled with ICRA and RTA. Member of ASACP and The Free Speech Coalition.