Posted on 06/29/2014 8:45:53 PM PDT by Citizen Zed
"We believe that Americans don't lose their religious freedom when they open a family business," said Barbara Green, who owns Hobby Lobby.
Hobby Lobby has over 500 stores with more than 15,000 employees. The company covers 16 types of contraception. But the owners object to including four types, versions of the morning after pills and IUD's, because they consider them to be a form of abortion.
The Obama administration and supporters of the health care law. Argue that a woman should be able to decide the type of contraception she uses, not her boss.
(Excerpt) Read more at kswo.com ...
The only place Obama reaches is into his Alinsky approved pockets for his copy of Das Kapital and some blow.
“Argue that a woman should be able to decide the type of contraception she uses, not her boss.”
She can use whatever the hell she wants, she can pay for it too.
Oh, in that case I'm with The Won. I didn't realize Hobby Lobby was trying to prevent their employees from using legal forms of murder. Here I thought they were just declining from paying for it.
It's not the fact of the business, it's the fact of the incorporation.
It may well be a necessity in today's business environment, but the fact of the matter is that incorporation crates a fake person - a legal entity - that takes the blame for those who actually violate the law inside of it.
We all know how you can't sue someone in a corporation, but have to sue the corporation instead of the person, unless you can show they acted outside of their jobs.
Well, the way that works under the law is that the government creates that corporate person - so the government is seen as the corporations' creator - it's GOD.
And so, the government owns it. That's why it has to pay fees and taxes for its existence, and cannot exist without paying those fees and taxes.
It doesn't matter whether it is a one-person corporation or General Motors. Or whether is is a partnership, an LLC, an S-corp. What matters is the indemnification enabled by the legal entity.
In other words, IT'S NOT HUMAN, and so IT GETS NO HUMAN RIGHTS.
Including the 1A right to freedom of religion.
All it gets is privileges, and those privileges are granted by the government, for the purposes of the government.
SO: no mater what SCOTUS rules on this, understand that they are NOT ruling on the Hobby Lobby famly members human rights to First Amendment religious freedom.
What they are ruling on is IF IT BENEFITS THE GOVERNMENT to extend 1A PRIVILEGES to corporations concerning the specific religious issues cited by the Hobby Lobby corporation.
I am not saying you should like the situation - just understand that that is what it IS. Because in fact, NO ruling will be made on the 1st Amendment right to religious freedom, because HUMAN rights are not before the Court.
So when exactly did it become “law” that when you ‘incorporate’ your business to protect your personal assets from lawsuit, you surrender your private property rights?
Because this is what is at issue here. Whether your private property and your inalienable rights to do with your property as you desire can be violated by the whims of government.
Exactly. If she is going to force her “boss” to pay for it, he should have a say in the matter.
She won’t be fired for using it on her own time.
And the “boss” here is a woman.
“We believe that Americans don’t lose their religious freedom when they open a family business,” said Barbara Green, who owns Hobby Lobby.
I hope I'm wrong, but the feds cannot and will not back down now, IMO.
Because this is what is at issue here. Whether your private property and your inalienable rights to do with your property as you desire can be violated by the whims of government.
By personal assets, if you mean those that are not owned by the company, you never surrendered your right to them. If you use them in corporate business, however, then they can be subject to the laws involving corporations.
If, on the other hand, you mean the personal assets you transferred to the corporation, then the moment you transferred them to the corporation you surrendered your private property rights. In fact, that would be WHY you transferred them to the corporation, SO they would NOT be your personal assets anymore - for tax reasons, liability reasons, whatever. Instead, once you transfer them, the corporation - the legal person - owns them. And you, in turn, own shares in that legal person/corporation. That's how it works, and WHY it works.
So you share the argument of the Obama regime and the MarxoFascists: that all business is public and therefore belongs to the Government and as such, the personal rights of the owners are non-existent.
Which means there is no such thing as private property rights anytime someone engages in public business or public activity if the government so-chooses and decrees.
Which means if you own a business and you refuse to provide services and benefits for those things which violate your conscience, religion and principles, too damn bad - because if you want to conduct business, you have no rights.
That is the entire issue.
Brace yourselves for disappointment.
Which means there is no such thing as private property rights anytime someone engages in public business or public activity if the government so-chooses and decrees.
Which means if you own a business and you refuse to provide services and benefits for those things which violate your conscience, religion and principles, too damn bad - because if you want to conduct business, you have no rights.
That is the entire issue.
Well, no. It's the quid pro quo that Talisker is addressing. The fed grants you protection from suit as a private person if you incorporate. That means they are offering to protect your personal property from theft by lawyers. So it's really a kind of protection racket. The problem is, as has been pointed out, in such deals the extortionist has the tactical advantage, and they'd like to keep it that way. Hard to run a dictatorship without the threat of loss to drive people where they otherwise wouldn't ever go.
OTOH, the very reason the left is so fried about Citizens United is not only because it liberated money for their natural adversaries, but also because it blurred those lines between human and corporation, recognizing the fact that corporations are necessarily always composed of humans and it is problematic to deny them real human rights such as free political speech simply because they have taken shelter under a legal fiction created by the government. So it's hard to picture how they could ignore that fresh precedent.
So it will be interesting to see what SCOTUS does with this. I'm not confident to make a prediction either way. I do have a sense that things are not quite normal, and some sort of backchannel thuggery may influence this outcome more than we would like.
Which means there is no such thing as private property rights anytime someone engages in public business or public activity if the government so-chooses and decrees.
Which means if you own a business and you refuse to provide services and benefits for those things which violate your conscience, religion and principles, too damn bad - because if you want to conduct business, you have no rights.
That is the entire issue.
---
Springfield Reformer: Well, no. It's the quid pro quo that Talisker is addressing. The fed grants you protection from suit as a private person if you incorporate. That means they are offering to protect your personal property from theft by lawyers. So it's really a kind of protection racket. The problem is, as has been pointed out, in such deals the extortionist has the tactical advantage, and they'd like to keep it that way. Hard to run a dictatorship without the threat of loss to drive people where they otherwise wouldn't ever go.
OTOH, the very reason the left is so fried about Citizens United is not only because it liberated money for their natural adversaries, but also because it blurred those lines between human and corporation, recognizing the fact that corporations are necessarily always composed of humans and it is problematic to deny them real human rights such as free political speech simply because they have taken shelter under a legal fiction created by the government. So it's hard to picture how they could ignore that fresh precedent.
So it will be interesting to see what SCOTUS does with this. I'm not confident to make a prediction either way. I do have a sense that things are not quite normal, and some sort of backchannel thuggery may influence this outcome more than we would like.
---
INVAR, I "share" none of this - I'm just explaining how it works. You wouldn't get mad at a mechanic who explains that the $500 part that burned out on your car was designed to burn out by the factory, so you would have to regularly replace it - right? I'm just the messenger here.
As Springfield Reformer said, it's a protection racket. Yet the irony is that if you didn't join it AND the Courts would recognize that you didn't join it (which they don't), you'd be safer than those who did join it - because you'd be outside of the corporate laws lawyers could use to sue you. Instead, lawsuits would have to follow common law, which takes into account human rights.
Quite frankly, I don't have the solution. In a sense, the only real solution can come out of tens of millions of people being aware of the problem, and working out the solution because they know the problem exists. So the REAL problem is how to let everyone know that this is the problem, and I don't have an answer for that. First of all, people don't even want to hear that this is the problem, then they'll argue with you, then they'll ignore it. Then any other avenue you can take, including the Net, will dry up because we literally live in a corporate society, so there is no money or status in pursuing this. I know I sound negative, but I'm not a kid anymore and my eyes aren't shiny with "hope" - and no, I don't consider that a loss.
The ONLY people who would be interested in this issue are those who care about freedom under the original Constitution, but those people, of course, get no standing anywhere. And, it must be said, a lot of them are crazy or delusional with sovereignty arguments that contradict themselves. I understand their passion, but they don't help anyone understand anything - and understanding, more than anything else, is needed. Not revolution or post-apocalyptic prepper fantasies.
This country was founded with faith in God's protection. It's come down to needing exactly that, I think. It might sound old-fashioned, but we all need to pray - hard.
The pill is 100% effective. The woman just has to hold it between her knees.
FLAHS ALERT:
HOBBY LOBBY WINS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My bad. I thought you were taking the argument the Obama regime and it's sycophants took in arguing this case. I find no validity to the argument because as SR pointed out - corporations and businesses are made up of PEOPLE who do have rights.
Yes, people have rights. Among those rights is the right to CONTRACT.
For example, what if you freely contracted to do work in a place which had a policy of no religious holidays. And then, when Christmas came on a Wenesday, you wanted to take the day off for religious reasons and were denied. Would this be a denial of your religious rights? Depends on what level you look at it. On the simplest level, yes. On a deeper level, no - because you had voluntarily agreed to work for a company which told you beforehand that your religious rights would not be honored. So ultimately, no right is being taken away from you - you agreed to sign your rights away concerning religion for the purposes of working at that company, by invoking your right to freely contract as you please.
That is EXACTLY what happens when you form a corporation. A corporation is a contract with the goverment that you undertake of your own free will. And what you voluntarily trade is your rights, for protection against personal liability. It doesn't matter that people feel they "have" to incorporate in order to do business. The point is that is WHAT "incorporating" MEANS. It's a legal contract, entered into freely with the government - period. To then act surprised about what it contains is putting the cart before the horse. Being a corporation doesn't "take away" a person's rights - rather, incorporating is how a person voluntarily trades in their rights for limited privileges, in order to receive limited indemnification against lawsuits.
That's why courts get exasperated - people voluntarily trade int their rights for contractual protection - and then demand the rights back. It's like paying for a car, getting the car, and then suing the car company to return your money while you keep the car.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.