Hillary Clinton on Hobby Lobby: “Corporation’s employers can impose religious beliefs on employees”

[rangerrebew]

Hillary Clinton on Hobby Lobby: “Corporation’s employers can impose religious beliefs on employees”

Posted on Jun 30, 2014 at 6:55 PM in Politics | 87 Comments
 

By The Right Scoop

The left hates that corporations are people. They absolutely hate it.

So much so that when the Supreme Court rules in a way that agrees with that idea, they lose their freaking mind.

And this clip below is a perfect example of that, where Hillary Clinton thinks that as a result of the Hobby Lobby decision, that employers will now be able to impose religious beliefs on their employees:


 The ruling was about Hobby Lobby having the right NOT to be forced by the government to pay for abortifacients. That’s it. It has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with employers imposing religious beliefs on employees. There are laws against that already.

But to the left, this is some kind of armageddon and it doesn’t even make sense.

(h/t: Buzzfeed)
http://therightscoop.com/hillary-clinton-on-hobby-lobby-corporations-employers-can-impose-religious-beliefs-on-employees/

[Charlespg]

   

   Hillary Clinton on Hobby Lobby: “Corporation’s employers can impose religious beliefs on employees”   

Shut up cankles     

[mountaineer]

Yeah, if I asked my employer to kill a member of my family (and pay the hit man) and he refused, I'd say he was imposing his religious beliefs on me, too!

[240B]

You guy obviously are not getting the point. With this ruling there is no longer any abortion of any kind ever in America. All American women are to be forcably inseminated and forced to carry the baby full term.
 
That is what this means. Don't you get it? No woman will ever be allowed to use any type of contraception! This is the end of everything! Oh the huge manetee!
 
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

[GourmetDan]

I see ham sandwiches at Kosher Delis...

[evadR]

I gotta admit, I never quite got the concept of a corporation having the same constitutional rights as a person.
Yeah, I know, the SC said so, but that don't make it true.
And I can't find anywhere in the writings of the founders where they intended such.

[sinkspur]

I gotta admit, I never quite got the concept of a corporation having the same constitutional rights as a person.
Yeah, I know, the SC said so, but that don't make it true.
And I can't find anywhere in the writings of the founders where they intended such.

What is a corporation composed of?  PERSONS working toward a common goal.  It isn't much of a stretch to conclude that a group of persons working in common could be viewed as one composition PERSON working toward a common goal.

[Oceander]

I gotta admit, I never quite got the concept of a corporation having the same constitutional rights as a person.
Yeah, I know, the SC said so, but that don't make it true.
And I can't find anywhere in the writings of the founders where they intended such.

It doesn't have all the same rights.  Corporations do not have Fifth Amendment rights against compelled self-incrimination, for example.

[rangerrebew]

Madam Clinton is obviously not aware of the REAL issue.  Hobby Lobby still provides birth control, 16 types, there are ones that deal with the morning after type pill they objected to.  That is hardly the end of the world.

[DCPatriot]

Madam Clinton is obviously not aware of the REAL issue.  Hobby Lobby still provides birth control, 16 types, there are ones that deal with the morning after type pill they objected to.  That is hardly the end of the world.

That's correct.  16 of 20 are covered.   They don't want to cover the abortive medication...the "Day After..."

And yet, that truth is not being covered by any of the so called mainstream lying media.


....or apparently, Mrs. Clinton.

[Dexter]

What is a corporation composed of?  PERSONS working toward a common goal.  It isn't much of a stretch to conclude that a group of persons working in common could be viewed as one composition PERSON working toward a common goal.

They want it both ways though. If corporations get the benefits of person-hood they should also deal with the consequences of person-hood. You know, like being held accountable for your crimes.

[Dexter]

It doesn't have all the same rights.  Corporations do not have Fifth Amendment rights against compelled self-incrimination, for example.

Not yet.

[Chieftain]

I gotta admit, I never quite got the concept of a corporation having the same constitutional rights as a person.
Yeah, I know, the SC said so, but that don't make it true.
And I can't find anywhere in the writings of the founders where they intended such.

No, I don't gotta admit any such thing.  This ruling has nothing to do with "a corporation having the same rights as a person".  This was a very narrow ruling about closely held corporations and family businesses.  It did not apply to all corporations, although along with the concepts of a free society and a fair judiciary, any corporation is free and welcome to hire an attorney, file a lawsuit on those grounds, and fight it up through the courts for a couple of years like these cases did.

The Founders did not intend that you give up your personal First Amendment rights just because you formed a business.  The Founders didn't say anything about all of the intrusive reporting and special taxing that corporations are subject to either, but I don't hear you cherry picking that thought to toss around.

There is more than one overly simplistic and completely incorrect meme running around out there on this, and you pointed out one of the more common ones....

 

[evadR]

No, I don't gotta admit any such thing.  This ruling has nothing to do with "a corporation having the same rights as a person".  This was a very narrow ruling about closely held corporations and family businesses.  It did not apply to all corporations, although along with the concepts of a free society and a fair judiciary, any corporation is free and welcome to hire an attorney, file a lawsuit on those grounds, and fight it up through the courts for a couple of years like these cases did.

The Founders did not intend that you give up your personal First Amendment rights just because you formed a business.  The Founders didn't say anything about all of the intrusive reporting and special taxing that corporations are subject to either, but I don't hear you cherry picking that thought to toss around.

There is more than one overly simplistic and completely incorrect meme running around out there on this, and you pointed out one of the more common ones....

 

You totally missed my point, not that there's anything wrong with that.

[evadR]

The Contraception Decision was Based on Bill Clinton's Law!
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/07/01/the_contraception_decision_was_based_on_bill_clinton_s_law

[Oceander]

No, I don't gotta admit any such thing.  This ruling has nothing to do with "a corporation having the same rights as a person".  This was a very narrow ruling about closely held corporations and family businesses.  It did not apply to all corporations, although along with the concepts of a free society and a fair judiciary, any corporation is free and welcome to hire an attorney, file a lawsuit on those grounds, and fight it up through the courts for a couple of years like these cases did.

The Founders did not intend that you give up your personal First Amendment rights just because you formed a business.  The Founders didn't say anything about all of the intrusive reporting and special taxing that corporations are subject to either, but I don't hear you cherry picking that thought to toss around.

There is more than one overly simplistic and completely incorrect meme running around out there on this, and you pointed out one of the more common ones....

 

Well put!