JustUsBoys.com gay porn forum

logo

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234 LastLast
Results 101 to 150 of 191
  1. #101
    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
    104,110
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by vulgar_newcomer View Post
    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.
    THus demonstrating, BTW, that roads are a "means of production": try producing anything without them.

    "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

  2. #102

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    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.
    You are using an entirely idiosyncratic definition of the word "socialist". Yours is not what the word means. You cannot change the substance by changing the meaning if the word.
    Last edited by Benvolio; July 2nd, 2014 at 01:28 PM.

  3. #103
    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
    15,733
    Blog Entries
    5

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    It's started already.

    Hobby Lobby and the religious right is now starting to make noises about therefore being exempt from any discrimination laws. As I see it, some of these places WILL start firing not only gays, but black people, the handicapped, and any other undesirables - all they have to do is to say that doing so conforms to their religion.

    THE UNITED STATES IS FUCKED.

    I would rather be killed, than ever again vote for a Republican.
    BOSS: I'm sorry, but I'll have to lay you and Jack off.
    SUE: Can you just jack off? I feel like shit today.

    Things that come to those who wait, are often left over from whoever got there first. (source: pharmaceutical spam 2007)

    "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

  4. #104
    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
    3,362

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by frankfrank View Post
    It's started already.

    Hobby Lobby and the religious right is now starting to make noises about therefore being exempt from any discrimination laws. As I see it, some of these places WILL start firing not only gays, but black people, the handicapped, and any other undesirables - all they have to do is to say that doing so conforms to their religion.

    THE UNITED STATES IS FUCKED.

    I would rather be killed, than ever again vote for a Republican.
    That result is simply not possible by the precedent set by this ruling, it is based on the RFRA (a law passed by a DEMOCRAT congress and President by the way), it does not make the store 'exempt' from the law, it only requires that the government take the least intrusive means of applying that law IF it intrudes on religious beliefs. All the state has to do to counter the claim is to show that there is no reasonable alternative that meets the state's reasonable interest (protecting civil rights) and the plaintiff's religious interests. In that situation, the law stands.
    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)

  5. #105
    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
    3,362

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    So a quick review of the 'devastating impact' of this ruling:

    • The contraceptive requirements of the ACA was NOT overturned or declared uncontitutional. (The ruling is not based on the contitution but the RFRA)
    • The employees of Hobby Lobby will have access to ALL the contraceptive methods outlined in the ACA at no cost or copays.
    • Hobby Lobby will not have to pay for the insurance coverage of four (out of twenty) of those methods.
    • Either the Insurance industry or the Federal government will take up the costs of those four methods.

    So exactly how is any minority being repressed here?
    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)

  6. #106
    Slut smokeshadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    278

    Code of Conduct

    Re: What is new on the Gay Marriage front?

    Well - you knew this was bound to happen!!!

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...6bd_story.html

  7. #107

    Re: What is new on the Gay Marriage front?

    Quote Originally Posted by smokeshadow View Post
    Well - you knew this was bound to happen!!!

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...6bd_story.html
    They forget of course that the ruling was tailored narrowly to include only family based corporations and only involve contraception.

  8. #108
    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
    104,110
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by frankfrank View Post
    It's started already.

    Hobby Lobby and the religious right is now starting to make noises about therefore being exempt from any discrimination laws. As I see it, some of these places WILL start firing not only gays, but black people, the handicapped, and any other undesirables - all they have to do is to say that doing so conforms to their religion.

    THE UNITED STATES IS FUCKED.

    I would rather be killed, than ever again vote for a Republican.
    Discrimination is not an issue found in the RFRA, so they're SOL.

    "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. #109
    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
    104,110
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    This is too good not to share:

    Hi, I'm a corporation!

    "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. #110
    Sex God
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    607

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Benvolio View Post
    You are using an entirely idiosyncratic definition of the word "socialist". Yours is not what the word means. You cannot change the substance by changing the meaning if the word.
    You're trying to invoke "No true Scotsman".

    What you're missing is that socialist, socialized and socialism are three different words.
    -"Socialist" is an adjective. It can be applied to nouns, and like all adjectives, its usage and precise meaning is subjective. "Eugene Debs was a socialist." "The Socialist Workers' Party considers itself Trotskyist."
    -"Socialism" is a noun, and refers to a country's prevailing economic system. "There are several French political parties that support socialism, albeit to differing degrees." "Albert Einstein endorsed socialism with a planned economy in a 1949 paper."
    -"Socialized" is a variation of the first, and is used to prefix more general nouns. It may be used interchangeably with "nationalized". "Socialized healthcare, or its various forms, is present in most developed nations, save for the United States." "In the era immediately following World War II, Britain nationalized its healthcare and railways."

    ***The following is not acceptable: "Socialist medicine" (Is the medicine socialist? No. Socialized, perhaps.)

    Ergo, wanting socialized healthcare is not the same as wanting socialism. Wanting "socialism in healthcare" is the same. "In healthcare" clarifies the usage of "socialism". "Socialism" is either the idea or its large-scale application. Applying it only to certain services is not large-scale.

    But please note: Kulindahr never mentioned any of those. So you cannot say he's misusing a word he didn't use at all. Rather, he said "single-payer, not-for-profit". That wording is very clear and refers to a precise concept. That the concept is, or is related to a highly specific application of socialism (notice "specific application of" is a prepositional phrase, modifying the noun "socialism") doesn't change the fact that he didn't use the word. By the way, roads are a means of production. They can be used at any stage of production from conception to distribution. That they're publicly owned does not socialism make.

    Also remember that a free market and capitalism are not necessarily the same thing. There have been free markets without capitalism (Titoism, where market forces shaped state-owned industry) and vice versa (state capitalism à la China and the USSR).

    Something else that seems to escape your grasp (this is assuming Kulindahr had at least included "socialism" in the post), is that there are grades of socialism.

    Rough order from right to left, omitting a few that I either can't remember or whatever*:
    -ethnocentric/nationalistic socialism (à la Nazism)
    -religious socialism
    [large void between right-wing and centrist-to-moderately-left forms]
    -liberal socialism (vociferously capitalist, includes partial or limited welfare state à la post-Thatcher Britain)
    -social democracy (broadly capitalist, includes extensive welfare state à la France)
    -democratic socialism (mostly capitalist, generally supportive of reformism à la Sweden)
    [small void before the extreme kinds]
    -state capitalism (added for completeness; state-owned businesses competing with each other à la present-day China)
    -market socialism
    -Maoism
    -Trotskyism/revolutionary socialism
    -Marxist-Leninist communism
    -utopian socialism (à la Robert Owen)
    -anarcho-socialism
    *Libertarian socialism; I don't know exactly where to put it.

    Between Nazism and New Harmony there's quite a swath of conflicting ideologies. Some are totalitarian or authoritarian, others more libertarian. Most of the ones towards the beginning and end don't mix. But you should read up on the ones in the middle. They're the most relevant (and by non-coincidence the kinds that are more widely advocated). Socialism isn't a single 'thing'. It's a collection of ideas that should be treated with some care. Calling something "socialist" is next to meaningless.
    Last edited by mightbe; July 2nd, 2014 at 10:36 PM.

  11. #111
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    63,690

    Code of Conduct

    Re: What is new on the Gay Marriage front?

    Quote Originally Posted by scream4ever View Post
    They forget of course that the ruling was tailored narrowly to include only family based corporations and only involve contraception.
    Just like a "narrow" ruling in 2009 led to the gutting of the Voting Rights Act

  12. #112
    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
    3,362

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Another interesting bit of information to add here, the courts have already ruled that the RFRA only applies to Federal laws. It cannot be used against State anti-discrimination 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)

  13. #113
    PerScientiam AdJustitiam bankside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Beware the deepity.
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Married (to a man)
    Posts
    16,840
    Blog Entries
    2

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Just as an interesting footnote to history, I can think of one example of what could arguably be called "socialist medicine."

    In the Soviet Union, alcoholism was sometimes treated by injection of a harmless placebo that was reputed to be a deadly poison activated by alcohol. The patient would believe that, once treated, any drink he consumed would cause a terrible painful death. It is difficult to imagine this treatment being effective in a society where people question authority, where state directives are unable to suppress the publication of scientific findings...It really takes a population conditioned by authoritarian governance to fall for it.
    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.

  14. #114
    Sex God
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    607

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by bankside View Post
    Just as an interesting footnote to history, I can think of one example of what could arguably be called "socialist medicine."
    That might be stretching the definition of medicine to include psychological torture. Haha

    Though I guess that could count (in an unorthodox way) as "socialist" medicine; medicine to correct the non-ideal socialist. Egh.
    Last edited by mightbe; July 3rd, 2014 at 09:27 AM.

  15. #115
    JUB Addict Ninja108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    63,690

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    I think this will backfire on them in the long run.
    Already the younger generations are moving away from religion, stuff like this will only add to it.

  16. #116
    Slut smokeshadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    278

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs


  17. #117
    Virtus in medio stat JUB Admin opinterph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Jawja
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    21,834
    Blog Entries
    14

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    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.
    The distinction is important.

    There is only one drug approved to induce abortion. It is called RU-486 (mifepristone) and is not on the FDA's list of approved contraception. It is available only by prescription and no employer is forced to pay for it as part of an employee health plan.

    What an abortifacient is -- and what it isn't (National Catholic Reporter; February 2012)
    The craziest thing about the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision (Los Angeles Times; June 30, 2014)

    So why would the Supreme Court blindly accept the assertion by the [Christian family who own the Hobby Lobby chain of craft stores] and their fellow plaintiffs that these contraceptive methods cause abortion?

    Because all that matters, in this religious freedom case, is that the [Christian family who own the Hobby Lobby chain of craft stores] believe it.

  18. #118
    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
    15,733
    Blog Entries
    5

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    ^ And all they have to do is to *SAY* that they believe it, even if they don't believe it at all, right?
    BOSS: I'm sorry, but I'll have to lay you and Jack off.
    SUE: Can you just jack off? I feel like shit today.

    Things that come to those who wait, are often left over from whoever got there first. (source: pharmaceutical spam 2007)

    "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

  19. #119
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,897

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Ninja108 View Post
    Just like a "narrow" ruling in 2009 led to the gutting of the Voting Rights Act
    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    Another interesting bit of information to add here, the courts have already ruled that the RFRA only applies to Federal laws. It cannot be used against State anti-discrimination laws.
    Quote Originally Posted by scream4ever View Post
    They forget of course that the ruling was tailored narrowly to include only family based corporations and only involve contraception.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    So a quick review of the 'devastating impact' of this ruling:

    • The contraceptive requirements of the ACA was NOT overturned or declared uncontitutional. (The ruling is not based on the contitution but the RFRA)
    • The employees of Hobby Lobby will have access to ALL the contraceptive methods outlined in the ACA at no cost or copays.
    • Hobby Lobby will not have to pay for the insurance coverage of four (out of twenty) of those methods.
    • Either the Insurance industry or the Federal government will take up the costs of those four methods.

    So exactly how is any minority being repressed here?

    The Hobby Lobby ruling is already being used to argue for discrimination against LGBT's on the basis of religion.

    A group of religious leaders has written a letter to president Obama to petition that he exclude religious institutions (now including corporations, thanks to Hobby Lobby) from his executive order that prevents federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The religious leaders specifically cite Hobby Lobby as a justification for discrimination.

    "This is not an antagonistic letter by any means," Wear told me. But in the wake of Hobby Lobby, he said, "the administration does have a decision to make whether they want to recalibrate their approach to some of these issues."

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...-obama/373853/
    It took two days from the Supreme Court's decision on Hobby Lobby for religions to decide they should be exempt from anti-discrimination laws, and to demand such protection formally. The court has eviscerated decades of case law and, having done that, invites a new generation of challenges to federal laws, including those designed to protect civil rights.
    Last edited by T-Rexx; July 4th, 2014 at 04:07 AM.

  20. #120
    veni, vidi, reliqui
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    33,678

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    ^ The most disastrous ruling....I'm sure that Scalia can hardly wait to widen this ruling to bludgeon the homos.

    I'm now very worried about homo marriage coming up before the Supreme Court now that it has been emboldened to rule for religious exemptions. There is the distinct possibility that they will create two classes of marriage.

    What prevents them from exempting any jurisdiction that puts the question of homo marriage to the voters based on sincerely held religious beliefs? What now requires clerks to issue licenses if it is against their deeply held religious beliefs? A person person, closely held as they are, are surely able to have the same protections for their religious beliefs as a corporate person.

  21. #121
    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
    3,362

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    The Hobby Lobby ruling is already being used to argue for discrimination against LGBT's on the basis of religion.

    A group of religious leaders has written a letter to president Obama to petition that he exclude religious institutions (now including corporations, thanks to Hobby Lobby) from his executive order that prevents federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. The religious leaders specifically cite Hobby Lobby as a justification for discrimination.



    It took two days from the Supreme Court's decision on Hobby Lobby for religions to decide they should be exempt from anti-discrimination laws, and to demand such protection formally. The court has eviscerated decades of case law and, having done that, invites a new generation of challenges to federal laws, including those designed to protect civil rights.
    That issue was already in play before the court's ruling though I'm sure they could make a RFRA case of it if they wanted. This again turns on the RFRA which is a law passed by a Democrat congress and signed by a Democrat President. The President's executive order is widely expected to include such an exemption precisely because of the negative impacts it would have on religious based charities that work with the government but since the wording has not been released yet they are expressing their concern. The court's ruling even if it was referenced has absolutely no impact on this situation.
    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. #122
    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
    3,362

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by rareboy View Post
    ^ The most disastrous ruling....I'm sure that Scalia can hardly wait to widen this ruling to bludgeon the homos.

    I'm now very worried about homo marriage coming up before the Supreme Court now that it has been emboldened to rule for religious exemptions. There is the distinct possibility that they will create two classes of marriage.

    What prevents them from exempting any jurisdiction that puts the question of homo marriage to the voters based on sincerely held religious beliefs? What now requires clerks to issue licenses if it is against their deeply held religious beliefs? A person person, closely held as they are, are surely able to have the same protections for their religious beliefs as a corporate person.
    It would be a disastrous approach for the court and flying in the face of 50 years of civil rights law concerning the negative impact of 'separate but equal'. However most the same sex marriage cases are turning on constitutional issues such as the equal protection clause and RFRA is a federal statue that applies only the the application of federal laws so it cannot be used to override a constitutional question. The Constitution overrules a simple statute.
    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. #123
    JUB Addict hotatlboi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Atlanta
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    7,949

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    The court has eviscerated decades of case law and, having done that, invites a new generation of challenges to federal laws, including those designed to protect civil rights.
    If you're going to copy and paste stuff verbatim from Slate, you should give attribution.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._you_need.html

    While some have read Hobby Lobby as a narrow statutory ruling, it is much more than that. The court has eviscerated decades of case law and, having done that, invites a new generation of challenges to federal laws, including those designed to protect civil rights.

  24. #124
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,897

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by hotatlboi View Post
    If you're going to copy and paste stuff verbatim from Slate, you should give attribution.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._you_need.html
    I tried. But the time limit cut me off.

  25. #125
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,897

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Stardreamer View Post
    This again turns on the RFRA which is a law passed by a Democrat congress and signed by a Democrat President.
    The RFRA was never intended to apply to for-profit corporations. The law states “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”

    When it was passed, nobody could have imagined that the Supreme Court would turn corporations into "exercisers of religion."

    (And, BTW, almost every Republican in both House and Senate also voted for the bill).
    Last edited by T-Rexx; July 4th, 2014 at 11:11 AM.

  26. #126
    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
    104,110
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by rareboy View Post
    What prevents them from exempting any jurisdiction that puts the question of homo marriage to the voters based on sincerely held religious beliefs? What now requires clerks to issue licenses if it is against their deeply held religious beliefs? A person person, closely held as they are, are surely able to have the same protections for their religious beliefs as a corporate person.
    Where do you expect to find a vote on religious beliefs that turns out unanimous?

    Where are there clerks who issue marriage licenses through for-profit 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

  27. #127
    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
    104,110
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    The RFRA was never intended to apply to for-profit corporations. The law states “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”

    When it was passed, nobody could have imagined that the Supreme Court would turn corporations into "exercisers of religion."

    (And, BTW, almost every Republican in both House and Senate also voted for the bill).
    When it was passed, federal law already considered corporations to be "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

  28. #128
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,897

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    When it was passed, federal law already considered corporations to be "persons".
    Not for the practice of religion.

    Not for execution for treason or murder.

    A corporation is not a person. It may be convenient to regard it as so for tax purposes, but corporations do not speak, do not worship God, and do not get pregnant and have children. They cannot be drafted into military service and cannot be executed for crimes. Corporations are not people.
    Last edited by T-Rexx; July 4th, 2014 at 11:29 AM.

  29. #129
    JUB Addict T-Rexx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    4,897

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    What is happening with recent Supreme Court decisions is a progressive, concerted effort by the Republican court to expand the power of rich people, at the expense of everyone else.

    Obviously, corporations do not speak. Their owners speak for them. By granting corporations free speech rights (Citizens United), the owners have not merely their own voices, but that of their property with which to speak. Because they are rich, such people are permitted greater speech rights than the people who work for them.

    By striking down limitations on campaign contributions (Citizens United), the court grants to wealthy individuals unlimited financial influence over elections and elected officials.

    By allowing corporations to impose the religious beliefs of the owners on employees (Hobby Lobby), the court is allowing the religious beliefs of the owners to trump those of the employees. The religion of your boss matters more than that of yourself.

    The Roberts court is a Republican court, and it intends to impose Republican values on America. That might not be a bad thing, except that Republican values are anti-democratic - they emphasize the superiority of wealth over citizenship in America.

  30. #130
    veni, vidi, reliqui
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    33,678

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    Where do you expect to find a vote on religious beliefs that turns out unanimous?

    Where are there clerks who issue marriage licenses through for-profit corporations?
    I think that you still see this as the 'narrow' ruling about 4 types of birth control.

    I am with Ginsburg et al. I think the decision will be cited as equal grounds for all types of exclusionary discrimination practices.

    As these cases get to the SC....and they will.....the current court will be inclined to rule that religious beliefs must be able to dictate the actions of the person person as well as the corporate person.

    It is this principle that is the epicentre of the disaster that the 5 Guys have created. Don't believe me? I hope I'm wrong. But just watch......a year from now, the damage from this ruling and the flood of cases from persons and institutions that can demonstrate that they are entitled to equal consideration of thier 'sincerely held beliefs' will almost make the Citizens United fuck-up pale by comparison.

  31. #131
    veni, vidi, reliqui
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    33,678

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs



    This week, the Supreme Court endowed corporations with religious conscience and made themselves the Council of Ayatollahs of American religion.

    This can only get worse.

  32. #132

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Corporations are groups of people. Yes, groups, including corporations have consciences. If you insist, then you must admit, corporations have no greed, no bad intentions, no selfishness, no discriminatory intent, etc. They are as pure as the driven snow, on the same reasoning that deprives then of consciences.
    Last edited by Benvolio; July 4th, 2014 at 04:12 PM.

  33. #133

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by rareboy View Post


    This week, the Supreme Court endowed corporations with religious conscience and made themselves the Council of Ayatollahs of American religion.

    This can only get worse.
    The Democratic National Committee, a corporation, has no conscience, No beliefs, no good intentions, no benevolent feelings, no good thoughts.

  34. #134
    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
    104,110
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    What is happening with recent Supreme Court decisions is a progressive, concerted effort by the Republican court to expand the power of rich people, at the expense of everyone else.

    Obviously, corporations do not speak. Their owners speak for them. By granting corporations free speech rights (Citizens United), the owners have not merely their own voices, but that of their property with which to speak. Because they are rich, such people are permitted greater speech rights than the people who work for them.

    By striking down limitations on campaign contributions (Citizens United), the court grants to wealthy individuals unlimited financial influence over elections and elected officials.

    By allowing corporations to impose the religious beliefs of the owners on employees (Hobby Lobby), the court is allowing the religious beliefs of the owners to trump those of the employees. The religion of your boss matters more than that of yourself.

    The Roberts court is a Republican court, and it intends to impose Republican values on America. That might not be a bad thing, except that Republican values are anti-democratic - they emphasize the superiority of wealth over citizenship in America.
    If they were republican values, I would cheer them on. But they're not -- they're plutocratic values.

    "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

  35. #135
    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
    104,110
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by rareboy View Post
    I think that you still see this as the 'narrow' ruling about 4 types of birth control.

    I am with Ginsburg et al. I think the decision will be cited as equal grounds for all types of exclusionary discrimination practices.

    As these cases get to the SC....and they will.....the current court will be inclined to rule that religious beliefs must be able to dictate the actions of the person person as well as the corporate person.

    It is this principle that is the epicentre of the disaster that the 5 Guys have created. Don't believe me? I hope I'm wrong. But just watch......a year from now, the damage from this ruling and the flood of cases from persons and institutions that can demonstrate that they are entitled to equal consideration of thier 'sincerely held beliefs' will almost make the Citizens United fuck-up pale by comparison.
    I don't care about the birth control aspect, I'm following what the Court said, that this is a matter of when people = corporation. That means unanimity, so unless ALL the owners of something agree, then the corporation is NOT people.

    And as has been pointed out, state laws aren't overturned. The bakery people will get nowhere with this, nor most others. It applies only to closely-held corporations, and then to a narrow set of those.

    "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. #136
    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
    104,110
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Benvolio View Post
    Corporations are groups of people. Yes, groups, including corporations have consciences. If you insist, then you must admit, corporations have no greed, no bad intentions, no selfishness, no discriminatory intent, etc. They are as pure as the driven snow, on the same reasoning that deprives then of consciences.
    No, they are neither pure nor impure -- they are paper entities, and paper entities by their nature cannot have rightys -- only the people involved have rights.

    So when a corporation "speaks", it has to speak for all the owners, and they have to agree unanimously -- otherwise, it is being allowed to engage in coercion and violation of its owners rights.

    So boards using those owners' money to engage in speech that is contrary to even one of the owners' wishes should be prosecuted just as someone refusing to hire someone because of skin color or anything else.

    "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

  37. #137

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    No, they are neither pure nor impure -- they are paper entities, and paper entities by their nature cannot have rightys -- only the people involved have rights.

    So when a corporation "speaks", it has to speak for all the owners, and they have to agree unanimously -- otherwise, it is being allowed to engage in coercion and violation of its owners rights.

    So boards using those owners' money to engage in speech that is contrary to even one of the owners' wishes should be prosecuted just as someone refusing to hire someone because of skin color or anything else.
    Hogwash. The laws and constitutions give rights to corporations, so they do have rights. The statutes, articles of incorporation and by-laws provide that the officers and boards are elected by the majority and thereafter speak for and govern the corporation. Dissenting shareholders can always sell their interests if they disagree.

  38. #138

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    What is happening with recent Supreme Court decisions is a progressive, concerted effort by the Republican court to expand the power of rich people, at the expense of everyone else.

    Obviously, corporations do not speak. Their owners speak for them. By granting corporations free speech rights (Citizens United), the owners have not merely their own voices, but that of their property with which to speak. Because they are rich, such people are permitted greater speech rights than the people who work for them.

    By striking down limitations on campaign contributions (Citizens United), the court grants to wealthy individuals unlimited financial influence over elections and elected officials.

    By allowing corporations to impose the religious beliefs of the owners on employees (Hobby Lobby), the court is allowing the religious beliefs of the owners to trump those of the employees. The religion of your boss matters more than that of yourself.

    The Roberts court is a Republican court, and it intends to impose Republican values on America. That might not be a bad thing, except that Republican values are anti-democratic - they emphasize the superiority of wealth over citizenship in America.
    So, I assume you would agree that NYTimes, NTSNB, Wash Post, should be outlawed? Clearly they should not allowed to express opinions. But they also should not be allowed to report news since the selection of particular stories and the reporting of them is easily slanted to influence voters. Or perhaps we need government monitors (one from each party) to review all proposed news statements to ensure absolute impartiality?

  39. #139
    Virtus in medio stat JUB Admin opinterph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Jawja
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    21,834
    Blog Entries
    14

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Benvolio View Post
    The statutes, articles of incorporation and by-laws provide that the officers and boards are elected by the majority …
    Not necessarily. Some By-Laws permit cumulative voting, which does not require each open seat to be filled separately by a straight vote.

  40. #140
    Virtus in medio stat JUB Admin opinterph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Jawja
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    21,834
    Blog Entries
    14

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Benvolio View Post
    Corporations are groups of people.
    “Corporations are people, my friend.” [Link]


    Quote Originally Posted by T-Rexx View Post
    The [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] was never intended to apply to for-profit corporations.
    Regardless of the law’s original intent, this ruling makes it clear that religious liberty rights are not automatically void when an organization earns profits.

  41. #141
    Virtus in medio stat JUB Admin opinterph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Jawja
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    21,834
    Blog Entries
    14

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by frankfrank View Post
    ^ And all they have to do is to *SAY* that they believe it, even if they don't believe it at all, right?
    It is my impression that the key question in this case is, “When does human life begin?”

    In that regard, I think it is fair to report that the government conceded Hobby Lobby’s sincerity with respect to contraception.

  42. #142
    Sex God
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Single
    Posts
    607

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Benvolio View Post
    So, I assume you would agree that NYTimes, NTSNB, Wash Post, should be outlawed? Clearly they should not allowed to express opinions. But they also should not be allowed to report news since the selection of particular stories and the reporting of them is easily slanted to influence voters. Or perhaps we need government monitors (one from each party) to review all proposed news statements to ensure absolute impartiality?
    Where did he ever say that? There are good corporations and bad ones. However (to be technical), none of those are corporations. None. They're assets OF corporations. Therefore, they are controlled by them. It's the control I take issue with. An utter distortion of the news for the corporations' sake. Notice that mainstream media is controlled, censored, and concerned with corporations. Impartiality is far less important than the corporate dollar backing it. But that's off-topic (though Kuli recently created one on that note if you'd like to drop in).

    What the Roberts court has done is catered to the interests of corporations. Not Republicans, not Democrats (by the way, both are backed excessively by corporations. Both are unequivocally pro-corporation, and unequivocally funded by them). Politicians are as bad as each other, but where it becomes especially problematic is that justices are not so universally depraved. Republican-nominated justices (as of the last 40 years) are usually more willing and more eager to cater to corporations; to complement their politicians. Democratic-nominated justices tend to be less swayed by the party and its corruption (though Kagan is perhaps an exception).

    Please allow me to reiterate; I have clearly stated that both parties are incorrigibly corrupt slaves to corporate interests. There is virtually no difference between them on that front--we do not have any major pro-labor or pro-worker party. They both act in the interest of their corporate backing. Only the judges differ in methodology. Generally, Republican justices arbitrate along the party line. Generally, Democratic justices just don't care.

  43. #143
    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
    104,110
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Benvolio View Post
    Hogwash. The laws and constitutions give rights to corporations, so they do have rights. The statutes, articles of incorporation and by-laws provide that the officers and boards are elected by the majority and thereafter speak for and govern the corporation. Dissenting shareholders can always sell their interests if they disagree.
    That last line is the escape clause of apologists for corporatism. It sounds good, but what it really means is there will be no responsible voices among shareholders, only yes-men for the board. So they can concentrate on greed and more effective ways to bleed the taxpayers for more money.

    It shows that today's capitalists believe in neither liberty nor equality; wealth is what counts.

    "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

  44. #144
    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
    104,110
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Benvolio View Post
    Hogwash. The laws and constitutions give rights to corporations, so they do have rights. The statutes, articles of incorporation and by-laws provide that the officers and boards are elected by the majority and thereafter speak for and govern the corporation. Dissenting shareholders can always sell their interests if they disagree.
    Rights are "endowed by the Creator", to human beings. No other entity has rights. Rationally, only sentient entities can have rights.

    And using a majority vote to determine a position is a violation of the rights of owners -- and should be prosecuted as such.
    Last edited by Kulindahr; July 5th, 2014 at 12:23 AM.

    "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

  45. #145
    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
    104,110
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Benvolio View Post
    So, I assume you would agree that NYTimes, NTSNB, Wash Post, should be outlawed? Clearly they should not allowed to express opinions. But they also should not be allowed to report news since the selection of particular stories and the reporting of them is easily slanted to influence voters. Or perhaps we need government monitors (one from each party) to review all proposed news statements to ensure absolute impartiality?
    You really ought to read the Constitution.

    "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

  46. #146
    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
    104,110
    Blog Entries
    78

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by opinterph View Post
    Not necessarily. Some By-Laws permit cumulative voting, which does not require each open seat to be filled separately by a straight vote.
    And he neglects to mention what that majority consists of: it isn't people.

    "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. #147
    veni, vidi, reliqui
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Gender
    Male
    Orientation
    Gay
    Status
    Partnered
    Posts
    33,678

    Code of Conduct

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulindahr View Post
    I don't care about the birth control aspect, I'm following what the Court said, that this is a matter of when people = corporation. That means unanimity, so unless ALL the owners of something agree, then the corporation is NOT people.

    And as has been pointed out, state laws aren't overturned. The bakery people will get nowhere with this, nor most others. It applies only to closely-held corporations, and then to a narrow set of those.
    And I come back to.....unanimity, when it comes to issues of religious beliefs....is not hard to come by when it means not having to pay for something.

    I do believe that smarter lawyers and judges than those who made this horrible decision are going to parse the ruling, determine equivalency in the principles applied and use it to further a social agenda of discriminatory practises by small 'closely held' businesses. As far as state law? The Supreme Court ruling will render state law impotent. As far as unanimity? It will crumble into dust once the principle of majority is applied....and it will eventually be applied. Unless this Court is stopped in its tracks by a liberal judicial appointment approved by a Democratic majority Senate.....these 5 Catholics are going to rule increasingly in favour of imposing conservative fundamentalist 'christian' values that can be used to further a corporatist agenda.

  48. #148

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Quote Originally Posted by opinterph View Post
    “Corporations are people, my friend.” [Link]




    Regardless of the law’s original intent, this ruling makes it clear that religious liberty rights are not automatically void when an organization earns profits.
    Corporations are legal persons, but they are also groups of people, which is what Romney said: " Corporations are people, my friend,” Romney said.

    Some people in the front of the audience shouted, “No, they’re not!”

    “Of course they are,” Romney said. “Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?”

  49. #149

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Remember, this question only arises because the Congress, President and Court previous swept aside the Constitution. The powers of the Federal Government are severely limited by the Constitution, and there is nothing which remotely suggests that Congress has power to require employers to make the gift of contraception to employees.

  50. #150

    Re: Supreme Court Rules Corporations Can Have Religious Beliefs

    Liberals always try to silence those who disagree. if you silence those who speak for free enterprise/capitalism, you give a free hand to those who work for socialism/marxism/communism. Indeed, it is one of the 10 measures the Communist Manifesto says that communist regimes will have in common:" 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State".
    The liberal media are not going to speak for free enterprise, so silencing corporations will spell doom for the economy.

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.