Obama is more important than god--you better believe it--amen!

Remember the Constitution? Remember how we were all supposed to have the freedom to pursue our religious beliefs? That freedom went away with the advent of Obamacare.

Hobby Lobby, a company owned by a Christian family, filed a lawsuit challenging the Obamacare mandate requiring the firm to provide their employees with insurance coverage for the morning-after and week-after birth control pills. Although the Hobby Lobby owners indicated they supported other forms of birth control, these two pills were analogous to abortion, which the owners oppose.

As has been the case with the liberal judicial system, the court ruled against Hobby Lobby.

So companies no longer have the freedom to decide what benefits they offer to their employees--even if they are paying for it. Obama has rendered our Country unrecognizable. How any Christian could have voted for this man--well, it would have required a big dose of rationalization (or a skin-color trumping).

Judge rejects Hobby Lobby's case against ObamaCare contraceptive coverage rule
Published November 19, 2012
Associated Press

OKLAHOMA CITY – A federal judge Monday rejected Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.'s request to block part of the federal health care overhaul that requires the arts and craft supply company to provide insurance coverage for the morning-after and week-after birth control pills.

In a 28-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton denied a request by Hobby Lobby to prevent the government from enforcing portions of the health care law mandating insurance coverage for contraceptives the company's Christian owners consider objectionable.

The Oklahoma City-based company and a sister company, Mardel Inc., sued the government in September, claiming the mandate violates the owners' religious beliefs. The owners contend the morning-after and week-after birth control pills are tantamount to abortion because they can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in a woman's womb. They also object to providing coverage for certain kinds of intrauterine devices.

At a hearing earlier this month, a government lawyer said the drugs do not cause abortions and that the U.S. has a compelling interest in mandating insurance coverage for them.

In his ruling denying Hobby Lobby's request for an injunction, Heaton said that while churches and other religious organizations have been granted constitutional protection from the birth-control provisions, "Hobby Lobby and Mardel are not religious organizations."

"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.

Heaton wrote that "the court is not unsympathetic" to the problems cited by Hobby Lobby and their owners, the Green family. He said the health care law's expansion of employer obligations "results in concerns and issues not previously confronted by companies or their owners."

"The question of whether the Greens can establish a free exercise constitutional violation by reason of restrictions or requirements imposed on general business corporations they own or control involves largely uncharted waters," Heaton wrote.

Hobby Lobby's attorney said the companies' owners will appeal.

"Every American, including family business owners like the Greens, should be free to live and do business according to their religious beliefs," Kyle Duncan, general counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said in a statement.

The morning-after pill works by preventing ovulation or fertilization. In medical terms, pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg attaches itself to the wall of the uterus. If taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, it can reduce a woman's chances of pregnancy by as much as 89 percent.

Critics of contraception say it is the equivalent of an abortion pill because it can prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. The lawsuit also alleges that certain kinds of intrauterine devices can destroy an embryo by preventing it from implanting in a woman's uterus.

Hobby Lobby is the largest business to file a lawsuit against the mandate.

Hobby Lobby calls itself a "biblically founded business" and is closed on Sundays. Founded in 1972, the company now operates more than 500 stores in 41 states and employs more than 13,000 full-time employees who are eligible for health insurance coverage. The company, which is self-insured, has said it will face a daily $1.3 million fine beginning Jan. 1 if it ignores the law.

"It is by God's grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has endured," said David Green, founder and CEO. "Therefore we seek to honor God by operating the company in a manner consistent with biblical principles."

The Green family has said it has no moral objection to the use of other contraceptives and will continue covering them for its employees.

No votes yet

Doesn't the rule fall outside part-time employees? Ultimately a company can force people into part-time positions and dodge this sort of crap.

contract. Even first year Law student would know that.
Not Supreme Court Justice Roberts, though.

Apparently, fines, and prison time IF you don't comply doesn't indicate any coercion, at all in his epileptic besotted brain !?

Fascism-from Obammy, is set on a collision course with $17 TRILLION debt and climbing fast !!!

So you have sperm…something you been destroying by the million pretty much every day into tube socks since you were 14 years old. You have the egg, something the woman’s body kills every month (great design there God) from the age of 13 years or so…put the two together for a day or two and suddenly it’s the most precious thing ever?

Yep.

Contrary to what you may believe, some people resent having your moral code FORCED on them.

And according to the First Amendment, I shouldn't have to put up with you forcing your moral belief system (or in your case your lack of moral beliefs) on me.

Freedom of Choice means more than ABORTION.

If you and your sock puppet think it's OK, good for you. But you have no right at all to force that belief on others.

And neither does the empty suit Golfer-In-Chief who is taking up space in the White House.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

halving the $17 TRILLION Federal deficit was just one of a million or so lies Obozo & the lying Dims told their voters, that they swallowed whole...without gagging mind you ?!

As fiscal year October 2013 ends with a $120 deficit, eclipsing last October's fiscal year 2012- $98 BILLION deficit.

A 125% increase kind of sounds like halving the Federal debt & deficit, was never on Obammy's, job killing agenda at all.
Like anyone who knows Fascism, would have seen coming.

Wait until you see the upcoming month's skyrocketing deficit D's voted for, that will continue.
And, expect another 300,000 unemployment claims making it the 46 month in a row of 300,000 + CLAIMS !!!
And, expect foreclosures in Obummer's " recovery", to top last years figures easily !!!

Feelin' gooood , aren't you D voters !!

So the thing that Sensorg gets out of this is a biology lesson? Leave it to a liberal to not understand the fact that Constitutionally protected rights are being violated by not allowing people to honor their religious beliefs.

As a child , a teenager, an "adult", lies are what he/she exists on .

The great thing about Obamm'y's recoronation is: all of His constituents :ie. single women, minorities, unions, and the homosexual crowd are the ones who will pay the much bigger price economically than any R dominated category will !

And, they do not yet give out nice vacations on Welfare by voting Dim, buy nice boats for Welfare rats for voting Dim, have the worst schools D's can deliver( that is for voting Dim ), have the worst poverty rates, food stamp rates, and have ZERO chance of escaping the Dim created HELL, they voted for !

I quite frankly, LOVE IT !!!!!

Sensor,,,,,

at a sickening 68% .

Hey Obammy voter, what is the black male work force percentage ?!

$17 TRILLION for the correct answer within 25 percentage points, which, will not make guessing any easier !?

And, after 1/1/2013. it will get infinitely worse....feelin better D voters ?!

Answer:well, as long as welfare sends the check, aid to bastard children still sends the check, S.S. disability still sends the check, Food stamps keep coming, poverty pays for my cable, Obamaohone, heat, electricity, clothing, college, etc., I'll be just as I was before the election !!!

Laughing like crazy.....

Corporations are not people, the Green's incorporated their "family business" in return for sweet tax breaks and legal protections. Boo-frickin-hoo.

Corporations are not people, the Green's incorporated their "family business" in return for sweet tax breaks and legal protections. Boo-frickin-hoo.

Corporations are people. According to the Supreme Court ..... OF 1886!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Rail...

The fact that that ruling extends constitutional provisions to corporations has been reaffirmed several times. So you are arguing against 126 years of legal precedent.

MikeyA

From wiki:

Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may sue and be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. This doctrine in turn forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. The doctrine does not hold that corporations are "people" in the most common usage of the word, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens.

Ah ha! Craig! I knew there was a reason you quoted wiki but not the page I posted. You quoted from another page but declined to cite the next paragraph where corporate personhood as it applies to the 14th amendment was affirmed by in 1888.

It took me a little bit to find it but my suspicion was true.

So sorry the page you quote says you are wrong.

Nice try with a selective reading of sources because you have a preconceived notion that the facts do not support.

MikeyA

I didn't quote from your post because your link says this:

"In fact, the headnote was only a reporting by the Court Reporter of the Chief Justice's personal interpretation of the Justices' opinions.

The issue of applicability of "Equal Protection to any persons" to the railroads was not addressed in the decision of the Court in the case."

LOL

LOL the point is in the article YOU quoted it shows that in 1888 the court reaffirmed that the court in Santa Clara did intend to extend 14th amendment protection to corporations.

You selectively quoted from wiki even though the page is decisively against what you've claimed.

You attempted to deceive. Anyone who reads both paragraphs will see that.

MikeyA

I didn't attempt to deceive, corporate personhood is:

" a convenient legal fiction that allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions that would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and that protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association."

From here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Your blanket statement that "corporations are people" does not mean they have the same rights as an individual which is what I was explaining. And employees of Hobby Lobby are people, and some of Hobby Lobby's employees are women and they have rights that Hobby Lobby could not take away in this case.

Again you leave out the next paragraph.

"... in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co v. Pennsylvania - 125 U.S. 181(1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, holding "Under the designation of 'person' there is no doubt that a private corporation is included [in the Forteenth Amendment]. Such corporations are merely associations of individuals united for a special purpose and permitted to do business under a particular name and have a succession of members without dissolution." This doctrine has been reaffirmed by the Court many times."

so yes you only quoted that which supported your arguement even though the facts do not support your arguement as the next paragraph shows.

So yes just because a corporations waive some rights like the right to not self incriminate by way of their comerce agreement they are still considered people under the law.

In other words... the Supreme Court says you are wrong.

MikeyA

The only reason a corporation is considered one entity is for convenience's sake when signing contracts and for the purposes of lawsuits as I stated above.

If corporations are people, then let's start taxing them like people right now and collect a hundred and twenty four years of back taxes. Budget crisis solved!

Proof you are a moron.

Corporations are not for "convenience" but necessity. Legal necessity!

If I start a business I am held liable for my actions. If I incorporate with another the corporation would be held accountable. It's a pooling of assets, risk, liabilities, and rewards.

Now with the second part of your post.

If we tax companies exactly the way we do individuals the vast majority of businesses would pay NO TAXES! Imagine 40% of businesses paying no tax as income earners do.

Currently these companies pay taxes on income, (sometimes gross) profits, sales, payrolls, excises, and if you are part of a franchise get ready for a tax on that too. So changing the code to that of individuals we can eliminate payroll taxes and instead get a tax DEDUCTION because for individuals the more who rely on you for a living the less you pay. Also eliminate franchises because no one is taxed by what family they are in. Also greatly reduce excise taxes.

So now you have eliminated almost half of those who currently pay taxes and for those left you've significantly cut their taxes. OH and you defunded social security and Medicare!

Great plan. I can tell you've never owned your own business.

MikeyA

Craig: If corporations aren't people, then governments aren't people. So I guess if the government has the right to give tax breaks and provide legal protections and still force individual mandates--then corporations have the right to have individual religous protections.

From the definition of "legal personality":

"Generally, legal persons do not have all of the same rights—such as the right to freedom of speech—that natural persons have"

To expand upon it even more if a corporation is not people then it CANNOT enter into legally binding contracts, have own/hold/buy/sell property or even be forced to pay taxes.

This of course is insane and even contradicts the charters of which several of our commonwealth states are founded. So according to Craig's expert opinion Virginia and Pennsylvania cannot exist!

MikeyA

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.