Posted on 11/25/2012 7:20:27 AM PST by NKP_Vet
“Plaintiffs have not cited, and the court has not found, any case concluding that secular, for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby and Mardel have a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion,” the ruling said.
Big, BIG error!
If a corporation is a “person” in the eyes of “Da Law”, then said corporate person has rights the same as a natural person.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - unless it is a Commie Pander Gander.
Perhaps this is the time to start ignoring the president’s mandate completely. If a good number of companies do it, there is nothing Obama can do about it. It is not constitutional what he is mandating. Therefore, it is not breaking any law to ignore him.
Actually, yes I do know. I also know that my faith superceeds everything else, including profits. Some of us just roll like that. If it were me, I would close up shop and start all over again.
One just might close up shop and walk away- if their God was big enough.
The solution to the problems, for some of us, is let God have all of it. If it were me, I would use the opportunity to make a big splashy stand- and let everyone know.
That is my opinion, you can’t shame me out it. :) You are welcome to yours.
We will see what happens when the next judgement comes in what this family does.
Bold talk for someone who's probably never risked what that family has.
Have you ever started a business? Did you persevere through every hardship and mind numbing terror for years, until you finally succeeded in making a success of it? Did you build it into an enterprise that was successful enough to have a handful, scores, or even hundreds of employees, and many thousands of customers?
I highly doubt it.
You can sit here posturing on Free Republic from the comfort of your armchair, but you've never faced what the owners of Hobby Lobby are facing. Proclamations such as yours aren't borne from real world experience, but small-minded, solidified personal views.
Walk a mile in a business owner's shoes before you cast judgment on what they should or should not do in this case.
Walk a mile in a business owner’s shoes before you cast judgment on what they should or should not do in this case.
:) Believe whatever you want. If the judgement is that he has to support abortion, then I hope he will close his business up and make a stand.
People of faith are called to look a little different. Apparently that is something you don’t understand.
Have I walked that faith in my own life- yes I have for many years. Have I risked huge things for my faith? Yes- huge things that I bet you could not even imagine. Do I see other people of faith doing the same? Yes, all of the time.
I am not looking for an argument. I am stating my opinion.
Have a good night.
It's not what I believe. It's what you're telling me with deafening silence.
You've never risked everything to start a business, and you've never shouldered the responsibility of other people's livelihoods. You never broke your back and sacrificed years and years of personal comfort, so that one day, your children could be the masters of their own lives and fortunes.
You have no idea what you're suggesting this family do in this situation.
You want them to fold and give up everything they fought and suffered for, to satisfy your personal sense of righteousness. Why not suggest that they double their efforts and fight back even harder? Why is your solution to give up in defeat? Destroying all those jobs, and killing the dreams of their grandchildren will really show the left a thing or two, won't it?
Unreal...
If the judgement is that he has to support abortion, then I hope he will close his business up and make a stand.
Closing his business is not 'making a stand'. That's capitulation. It's surrender to the enemy. The answer is to spit in the devil's eye and dare him to blink.
What kind of effect, if any, will this have on businesses which operate under regulations of halal or kosher, if that’s the right way to put it? A lot of those business aren’t strictly “religious”, but their religions affect how they operate. Or will they, especially the Muslims, slip under the radar as they generally manage to do?
You have no idea what you are talking about. None- nada. You have no idea what I have or have not done.
Get back on topic. Do I want them to make a bold stand for God. Yes. If they are Christians, they want me to make a bold stand for God. And I will , and I do.
My solution is to not ever support or condone abortion, or to give up my right to make a bold stand for God. I believe it is clearly against the word of God to kill babies.
If these people are serious about abortion being against their faith, then they answer to God. If they answer to God than this world and this business are temporary tools, given to us so that we may point others toward God.
For most Christians God is far bigger than any business or government, and the sacrifice that was made for us, when Jesus died, is far deeper and more painful and huge and risky than closing up a business.
Do I want these Christians to walk boldly in faith. Yes, I do.
You may not have that faith, and your are entitled to your opinions. I am very clear about what my opinions are based upon. The word of God.
Christians are not called to worship God only when it is fun to do, so it is my opinion that I would close up shop. We are called to obey God’s word when it is almost impossible to do. If this man is a Christian, he already knows what I am saying is true.
So the final judgement hasn’t come in and what he does is not yet seen.
Whether he closes up or not- is between him and God.
If you'd ever started or run a business, you would have said so in your first reply to me. This is your third post to me, and you still haven't answered the question, which means, of course, that you never have. This whole conversation is nothing more than a narrow expression of your personal religious views.
If they answer to God than this world and this business are temporary tools, given to us so that we may point others toward God.
So, I guess they 'didn't build that', eh? Right. I think we're done here.
that works for me
I think this is all about creating dissatisfaction with private insurance thru the employer - Barry Soetoro’s goal is single-payer Govt. providing everything the young and promiscuous need for killing their babies.
Again, gambling is the creation of risk. Insurance is protection against a hazard (i.e., possibility of loss).
Also, insurance does not exist so its policyholders can “win,” but to restore a policyholder to the position he was in immediately before a loss. In gambling, the whole purpose is to win, to come out in a better position than what one was before placing a bet.
Both gambling and insurance are balancing acts of risks and rewards. For “win” please interpret “receives payout”. Are you prepared to argue that insurance is socialism, notwithstanding my comments above to the contrary? What is/are the flaw(s) in my argument that insurance isn’t socialism?
Insurance is socialism? Please.
Socialism is an economic theory that establishes social ownership of the means of production. Even a mutual insurance company (wherein the members or policyholders are the owners) does not rise to a socialist enterprise, though it is arguably closer to one than a stock company where the ownership rests with the stickholders. But that does not make a mutual company a socialist enterprise (though socialists much prefer a mutual company over a stock company, mainly because they think they can better control it). Now, if government wholly controlled and operated insurance, then you can certainly make the argument that insurance as practiced by government is socialism. But insurance, as originally created and intended, is spread of risk; socialism is not spread of risk, but rather is shared misery. Insurance protects what you have and own; socialism ensures that you personally own nothing, and what you may have is nothing but what the state deems to share with you.
Insurance is socialism? Please.
Socialism is an economic theory that establishes social ownership of the means of production. Even a mutual insurance company (wherein the members or policyholders are the owners) does not rise to a socialist enterprise, though it is arguably closer to one than a stock company where the ownership rests with the stockholders. But that does not make a mutual company a socialist enterprise (though socialists much prefer a mutual company over a stock company, mainly because they think they can better control it). Now, if government wholly controlled and operated insurance, then you can certainly make the argument that insurance as practiced by government is socialism. But insurance, as originally created and intended, is spread of risk; socialism is not spread of risk, but rather is shared misery. Insurance protects what you have and own; socialism ensures that you personally own nothing, and what you may have is nothing but what the state deems to share with you.
FYI My position is that insurance is much closer to gambling than it is to socialism.
“cancel all medical insurance.”
BHO: “Your terms are acceptable.”
BHO: “Your terms are acceptable.”
its lose, lose as long as zer0bama and zer0care exists.
unfortunately, the chief justice was blackmailed with a gay photo or an illegal adoption....and the 47% picked up another couple of percent to make a majority and we are stuck with the POSOTUS for 4 more years baring impeachment or death.
There is no constitutional right to the free exercise of religion. That right is endowed to us by God Almighty alone. All the Constitution does is to prohibit Congress from taking away that right. Based upon his ignorance of the Constitution of the United States of America upon which he swore an oath to uphold, this judge should resign his position effective immediately.
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.