Chucky conveniently leaves out the fact that Hobby Lobby has been in business for years and only since Obamacare did government try to specify every detail of what sort of health insurance employers had to provide.
Schmuckie is a fascist. Get a rope.
What part of “Congress shall make no law” do you not understand, Chuckie?
Ironic thin is Schumer is Jewish (I think)
The concept of "open market", by its nature, involves a "willing buyer" and a "willing seller". There are multitudes of reasons a normally "willing seller" chooses to become "unwilling". A bunch of commies have no standing to define the term "open market". That is one of the fundamental reasons our economy is, and has been, in the crapper for so long . . . their economic theory is destructive garbage.
This reads like satire.
Oddly enough, there is an underlying constitutional problem that needs to be addressed. Since the time of Lincoln, “corporate civil rights” have come to dominate business law.
However, human civil rights are unalienable, and endowed by the creator, so are neither given, nor can be legitimately taken away by government. Corporate civil rights are *entirely* issued by government, and can be modified, or even eliminated at their whim.
The major problem exists in confusing human civil rights with corporate civil rights. It is a dangerous enough problem that there needs to be a constitutional amendment to address it, because as things now stand, it permits corporations to do things they should absolutely not do; and it suggests to government that human civil rights are theirs to whimsically tamper with as well.
Importantly, corporations *do* need rights, issued by the federal government, to protect them against abuses by the states, foreign governments, non-governmental organizations, and each other. But these are *not* human civil rights.
Which brings us up to the current situation with Hobby Lobby. Were it to be a “public company”, issuing shares to stockholders, and controlled by the majority shareholder, it is a “public” corporation. So its corporate civil rights can be and should be wholly in the realm of government.
This has legitimacy, and as a sword it cuts both ways. For example, such a corporation could be forced to offer abortions as part of a health plan; but at the same time, the corporation could be forbidden from direct involvement in politics, or even funding of charities, NGOs and foundations, the vast majority of which are liberal-leftist.
However, Hobby Lobby and many others exist as “privately held corporations”. This means that because they do not have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, they have far greater rights to assert the human civil rights of its owners. Conversely, government should have far less ability to require performances from it, as it would if the private corporation was an individual.
In practical terms, this should also mean that Hobby Lobby should have almost *all* the same corporate rights as there are human civil rights.
“The Constitution forbids a religious test for public office.”
Not strictly. Until the 14th, this was only interpreted to mean federal offices or designations. States themselves often required religious tests for state government positions in their constitutions, examples including Arkansas among others.
My view is that if the government can tax a business then a business should be treated like a person. Otherwise it’s taxation without representation.
How about having the orthodox community pay for thier own sh## chucky, care to tackle this one? They marry within the religion but not with the state so thier spouces and kids stand on line for entitlements as single parents, they vote in massive blocks like lemmings to elect those who will give them everything they want.
Obama: “If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them,”
Schumer: “If somebody wants to practice their religion, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them,”
“Contraception and abortion are sacraments of the left and ALL must partake or be destroyed...in the name of liberty of course.”
And for the children.