The two lawsuits in question are taking place in the states of Delaware and Michigan. Both happen to have what are called "Public Accommodation Laws" that include a ban on age discrimination. While all 50 states have some sort of Public Accommodation law in place, only 19 of the 50 states actually have laws that include age. Apparently in 31 states (including Minnesota) you can be legally discriminated against because of your age. Who knew?
But either way, Dicks will have to show the courts that their ban on selling guns to people under the age of 21 serves a greater public good that justifies the breaking of the anti-discrimination laws in their state.
Working against Dicks is the fact that we allow people under the age of 21 to join the Military, train with assault rifles, and actually use them to wage war against our enemies. We also allow people to join the police academies at 18, and in many cases those under the age of 21 can even be employed as armed security guards (with the adequate training of course).
One has to wonder what statistical evidence exists that could justify a ban against legal adults, because of their age. I would believe it might have to be fairly conclusive. It would otherwise seem like the law (and to some degree common sense) will be on the side of the plaintiffs, while public sentiment and emotional appeal will be on the side of the defendants.
I'll be curious about how those who believe that a baker must bake a cake for a same sex wedding in order to keep in line with anti-discrimination laws, will see this lawsuit? Will these same people side with the plaintiffs because they too are claiming discrimination? Or will they do the old 180 and suddenly feel like a business should have the right to take their own private political views into consideration and create a policy that allows them to pick and choose who they sell to?
Interestingly, while there are laws that protect a business from having to go against their own religious beliefs, there really isn't any laws that protect a business from having to go against a political belief. Legally, the standing of the baker is probably stronger (from citing a religious exception) than that of the sporting goods store (from citing a generic public interest).
130 comments:
I'll be curious about how those who believe that a baker must bake a cake for a same sex wedding ... Will these same people "side" with the plaintiffs because they too are claiming discrimination?
Yes, Dicks and Walmart have almost no chance in this lawsuit and should never have discriminated against 18-21 year olds. Even in states that do not provide for age in public accommodation laws, there should be no discrimination.
I'm curious about the other side. Are YOU doing a 180 and siding with the stores?
Are YOU doing a 180 and siding with the stores?
As I pointed out, there are religious freedom laws that are relevant in the case of the baker and others. There is a legitimate legal argument to be made on their defense. Hobby Lobby and others have prevailed in legal disputes using the RFRA as the basis of their legal argument.
There is no such political freedom laws that exist or are relevant for Dicks. There seems to be very little in terms of legal argument outside of citing a perceived (but ultimately disputed) public interest.
So based on a legal standpoint, it would not be a simple matter of hypocrisy. To some degree, I am always a little more receptive to providing a retailer with more control over their business than our Government allows them to have in 2018. But I see this (as you do) as a situation where Dicks is fighting an uphill legal battle.
On the flip side it would be total hypocrisy to argue that someone who has a legal standing (Religious freedom) should still be required to sell something that they believe is an affront to their religion, while simultaneously arguing that someone without a good legal defense (Dicks) should be allowed to pick and choose who they sell to... all because you agree with the politics of it.
Are YOU doing a 180 and siding with the stores?
on the contrary, it sounds to me like he's noting the liberal hypocrisy of the religious vs. the political.
and considering the fact that liberals politicize EVERYTHING, it's worth noting the difference.
A lot of rationalization there CH. Someone might show the cake in a ceremony, someone might shoot innocents at a school. You think that the "religious" reason (to refuse the cake) has better moral grounds than discouraging the shooting of kids.
Very hypocritical in my view. Either both have the right to refuse on moral grounds, or both do not have the right.
I'm going to cynically suggest that Dicks never intends to win this lawsuit, and welcomes it to prove their own virtue. Anyone who blames Dicks for some shooting can be told that Dicks had no choice, legally, about who to sell the guns to.
You think that the "religious" reason (to refuse the cake) has better moral grounds than discouraging the shooting of kids.
i'm not seeing morality enter into either scenario. both are constitutional. in the case of the cake it's the first amendment, in the case of Dick's it the second, as well as public accommodation.
i will agree with you on one thing though - all Dick's is really doing is virtue signalling. that's quite fashionable these days.
You think that the "religious" reason (to refuse the cake) has better moral grounds than discouraging the shooting of kids.
Did I argue that, WP... Nope.
I made no argument regarding "moral grounds".
I argued that the Religious Freedom and Restoration acts (both state and federal laws) provide a LEGAL defense for the baker to refuse to bake the case.
I argued that there is no such law that covers the choice of Dicks to ignore age discrimination laws.
That's a pretty simple factual argument. I provided you with no indication as to whether or not I find either situation to be either moral or immoral.
All that being said... I think it's clever that you argue as if the Dick's argument (that not selling to people under 21 discourages the shooting of kids) is already proven to be valid.
Ultimately, that would have to be proven. That people between the ages of 18-21 who purchase firearms from Dicks commit more gun crimes than those over the age of 21 who purchase firearms from Dicks.
And by the way, although I support the plaintiff and am cynical about Dicks' motives, I'll also point out that in Georgia it is not legal for someone under the age of 21 to purchase a handgun from a licensed dealer. We don't have ANY public accommodation laws except for disabled.
It's another attitude that I find hypocritical among conservatives. They want to stay hands-off on a business' right to decide who they want to sell to, but get up in arms if the business exercises that right with respect to guns.
Our caver in chief surrenders to the NRA again and puts the moronic Betty Boop Devoss in charge.....guaranteeing nothing will get done.... once again, money talks while people get shot!!!!!
Politics
Donald Trump Caves on Gun Reform, Will Appoint the Kind of Study Panel He Denounced Saturday
Newsweek Newsweek 2 hours 30 minutes ago
Early this month, President Donald Trump accused Republicans of being so afraid of the National Rifle Association (NRA) that they wouldn’t raise the minimum age to buy an assault weapon. Now he’s backing off the idea himself, according to senior officials who spoke with reporters Sunday.
On Monday, Trump is expected to announce the new Federal Commission on School Safety. Over the next year, the group, led by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, will study the idea of raising the age to buy assault weapons from 18 to 21 and other policies on how to end school shootings.
You opened the door arguing "moral grounds" when you avowed it "total hypocrisy" to argue that someone can discriminate on the basis of "affront to their religion" but not for humanitarian reasons. Citing "hypocrisy" places your position in the realm of morality, not law.
I could argue that Dicks is exercising religious freedom by hoping to prevent the murder of school children. It's probably a better argument than the bakers had in fact. I don't believe that and I don't think it works in Oregon, but that's one possible legal argument. Arguing abstract application of statutes is outside of the realm of hypocrisy; it works or it doesn't, that's all.
Seems to me that the same public safety rationale that prohibits alcohol sales to anyone under 21 could apply here as well.
Personally, I don't have a problem with the age 21 restriction.
All that being said... I think it's clever that you argue as if the Dick's argument (that not selling to people under 21 discourages the shooting of kids) is already proven to be valid.
It's their nominal reason, and it's absolutely valid that it IS their reason for the discrimination. The sufficiency of the reason will be determined by some judge, and I have made no representation about that.
Wasn't it you who told me that it didn't matter whether the Christian baker's cake had no real effect on anything, as long as that was their belief? That one big issue was that the cake, used in an event contrary to their moral beliefs, would be associate with the bakers? Those same arguments can be applied to Dicks and their guns, and likely more reasonably.
Personally, I don't have a problem with the age 21 restriction.
I think it's a valid viewpoint, an no problem with age restrictions, but as I've said before, 21 is a little extreme.
Dicks is screwing with the basic rights of adult American citizens, on the pretext of prejudiced concern over what those citizens are going to do with the guns. They have their own motives; I don't for a minute believe the nominal reasons, so I do have a problem with it.
The ideal response would be to let the free market sink Dicks if and when this stunt backfires. Unfortunately they're fully aware that parents will buy the firearms for their adult children if necessary, so they're not really risking many sales.
So by that public safety rational you can refuse to sell a gun to an African-American because they are more statistically incline to use it in a homicide?
That's a rather scary rational.
You opened the door arguing "moral grounds" when you avowed it "total hypocrisy" to argue that someone can discriminate on the basis of "affront to their religion" but not for humanitarian reasons.
No, my argument:
On the flip side it would be total hypocrisy to argue that someone who has a legal standing (Religious freedom) should still be required to sell something that they believe is an affront to their religion, while simultaneously arguing that someone without a good legal defense (Dicks) should be allowed to pick and choose who they sell to... all because you agree with the politics of it.
Was based on a legal standing, not a moral one.
Seems to me that the same public safety rationale that prohibits alcohol sales to anyone under 21 could apply here as well. Personally, I don't have a problem with the age 21 restriction.
The difference is that the law prohibits the sale of alcohol. The age restriction here is being set by a retailer.
I could argue that Dicks is exercising religious freedom by hoping to prevent the murder of school children.
Certainly you could argue this.
But could you argue, in court, that it's against a church's beliefs for a 20 year old to purchase a gun because he might kill someone, but perfectly fine with those same beliefs for a 21 year old to do so...
and do so with a straight face?
Personally, I don't have a problem with the age 21 restriction.
i do. the same kid that can't by an AR at Dick's can enlist and shoulder an M-4? c'mon.
we need to get consistent about age in our society. 18 for this, 21 for that...
it's ridiculous. pick one and apply it to everything. i'm an advocate for 21.
Still a problem with the drinking age even though drinking alcoholic beverages isn't a constitutional right.
You still have equal protection problem denying a privilege based in age when that age is considered an adult.
As I said, I have no problem rolling back the age of majority to 21 but you would have to repeal the 26th amendment.
But as long as you consider age 18 an adult than it is unequal treatment to deny them certain privileges.
As I said, I have no problem rolling back the age of majority to 21 but you would have to repeal the 26th amendment.
a no brainer. as we're learning from the parkville crisis actor snots they belong nowhere near a voting booth at 18. shit, we should raise it to 26. if you need to stay on mommy and daddies health insurance, you're obviously still being infantilized.
Rathole the assholr posted
he parkville crisis actor snots they belong nowhere near a voting booth at 18.
Those kids have more brains and guts than you will ever have....I'm sure that you have had shots fired at you like those snot actors. They have class, you don't. Glad you think your gay boys should be on their own with health care...Understand aids can be very expensive to treat.....and I'm sure daddy don't give a fuck....idiot
Those kids have more brains and guts than you will ever have...
You mean the kid who hid in the closet while his friends were shot, and is now taking advantage of it by playing the victim, and repeating Bernie Sanders talking points, and conspiracy theories on CNN ??
Tells me something about you, Denny... when you look up to a 17 year old teenager, who's main talent seems to be taking various videos that he hopes go "viral" with other teenagers.
Six Claims Trump Made at His Weekend Rally That Were False or Lacked Context
The New York Times
By JUSTIN BANK
3 hrs ago
Liar In Chief
Six Claims Trump Made at His Weekend Rally That Were False or Lacked Context
The New York Times
By JUSTIN BANK
3 hrs ago
if only the ny times fact checked themselves as vigorously as they fact check trump.
heh.
piss off pederast.
You're not quite following, CH. You're arguing that it's hypocritical because you draw a distinction: in one case there is a legal argument (free expression of religion) and in the other case a political argument.
I made the case that both could be posed as moral arguments. You rejected that, emphasizing legal standing versus without a good legal defense (your emphasis). I showed you how Dicks could have legal standing, and a similar legal defense. You now want to say, that defense isn't good enough ... mocking in fact, "and do so with a straight face?"
Totally missing the point. It's not necessary or helpful to try to evaluate how well the defense would work. The business you don't support HAS a potential defense, almost the same defense as the business you did support. It makes MORE sense than the baker's defense, because the feared consequences are more concrete, universally immoral.
So IMO there are both moral equivalences and legal equivalences. Some technical aspects may differ, and Dicks may not even try that defense. The bakery in the end, must follow the general law. Their argument did not work, and it doesn't matter if I could present a similar one with a straight face. It works, or it doesn't work. The only hypocrisy here is when you draw a distinction because you think that only the bakers are worthy of the legal defense.
Those kids have more brains and guts than you will ever have...
...as they eat tide pods for breakfast. they're imbecilic little drama queens
LOL.
youth politics are identity politics. which is why the left embraces and elevates these kids. it just so happens that there is probably the most major dichotomy in play with youth politics - they're the MOST emotional and the LEAST informed. it doesn't mean they aren't entitled to have an opinion. it just means that their opinion has no outsized value. rather, it should be discounted proportionally to their immaturity and lack of life experience.
and some people never grow up, d0pie. just look at you and roger.
It's not necessary or helpful to try to evaluate how well the defense would work.
Of course it is...
Because we both know that Dicks Sporting Goods is not going to go into court and argue that they are denying 18,19, and 20 years old citizens the ability to purchase guns or ammo... because they believe it's a violation of their company's deeply held religious view point.
First of all, they are not a privately owned company like Hobby Lobby, or a religious organization such as Little Sisters of the Poor, or a small business owner like the Baker. Dicks is a publicly traded company who would not have any religious view points under the legal scope of that law.
They also have not offered (publicly) any suggestion that this decision was motivated by religion (even if they did qualify as a publicly traded company).
So I am allowed to mock you for suggesting that they could or would make a claim of religious protection under the RFRA laws.
The "ENTIRE POINT" as I made it... is that:
1) the Baker can, did, and still is making a case based specifically on the RFRA laws. The Baker has a valid legal argument, and the courts have been (in the past) at least somewhat sympathetic to the argument.
2) No such LEGITIMATE argument can actually be made on behalf of Dicks Sporting Goods. Legal experts looking into this have already pointed out that their defense will be an strategy of trying to show a "greater community good" that could provide justification for breaking the Public Accommodation Laws.
First of all, they are not a privately owned company like Hobby Lobby, or a religious organization such as Little Sisters of the Poor, or a small business owner like the Baker. Dicks is a publicly traded company who would not have any religious view points under the legal scope of that law.
When you say "legal scope of that law" I presume that you mean the Supreme Court landmark decision in HHS v Hobby Lobby, where the decision does specify "closely held" corporations. In a nutshell
"but the purpose of extending rights to corporations is to protect the
rights of people associated with the corporation, including shareholders,
officers, and employees. Protecting the free-exercise rights of
closely held corporations thus protects the religious liberty of the
humans who own and control them."
It speaks specifically to "closely held", but does not preclude publicly held corporations. In fact, the decision merely points out that there are no examples and the difficulties, and implies that publicly held corporations would indeed be protected!
"(3) Finally, HHS contends that Congress could not have wanted
RFRA to apply to for-profit corporations because of the difficulty of
ascertaining the “beliefs” of large, publicly traded corporations, but
HHS has not pointed to any example of a publicly traded corporation
asserting RFRA rights, and numerous practical restraints would likely
prevent that from occurring. "
So I strongly dispute that publicly held Dicks cannot have a religious view. It's easier to determine with a few owners, but not impossible with shareholders, employees and the other artifacts of corporate structure, all of whom ARE protected by the same laws according to this decision.
So even if you do think that we must engage a constitutional law debate to decide whether someone may make a legal case (you're wrong, we don't) it's STILL not as simple as you think.
So I strongly dispute that publicly held Dicks cannot have a religious view.
you've been using the words "religious" and "moral/morality" interchangeably. you do realize that they're not interchangeable.
at least i hope you do. switching back and forth between the two could be seen as facilitating your troll, but it's over the top obvious.
.
.
2) No such LEGITIMATE argument can actually be made on behalf of Dicks Sporting Goods. Legal experts looking into this have already pointed out that their defense will be an strategy of trying to show a "greater community good" that could provide justification for breaking the Public Accommodation Laws.
I agree that their defense will not be a religious freedom based one, but your claim does Not Follow. The argument DID NOT WORK for the bakers, so that alone will make the more standard defense preferable. More difficult, not less legitimate than when it was used by Hobby Lobby.
One think I'm at a loss on though, is why do you think that the community wellbeing defense is less legitimate than the (failed) religious expression defense used by the bakers? Dickies has at least the same defense, and will use a better one, and either way your "entire point" has failed.
you've been using the words "religious" and "moral/morality" interchangeably. you do realize that they're not interchangeable.
That depends entirely on your religion RRB. There are more religions than just Protestant Christianity you know.
And furthermore, rrb, I said that the defenses can be posed as moral arguments, which is exactly how the christian bakers presented it. Don't go semantics on me, I'm not using them interchangeably.
There are more religions than just Protestant Christianity you know.
as a roman catholic and someone who was immersed in judaism in my youth i happen to realize that. i also realize that it's totally irrelevant.
wp, CH has made a very direct legal argument as he addressed Dick's decision and subsequent potential legal woes.. and as you have been prone to do lately, you latched onto it and tied it into every knot in the boy scout handbook.
i'm not sure what you're trying to prove. if it's to convince us of your trolling prowess consider me convinced. other than that, not much else can be derived from your comments.
.
The argument DID NOT WORK for the bakers
The case Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission has been heard by the USSC, and has not yet been ruled on. A ruling is expected this summer.
Many legal experts expect that Kennedy might be the fifth vote in favor or the Baker, based on his hard critique that Colorado was not acting with "tolerance" of the Phillip's religion and did not do enough (actually they did nothing) to attempt to accommodate the religious views. Kennedy suggested at one point that previous decisions were based on a "hostility to religion".
So, no... we do not know that the Baker's argument did not work. Ultimately it will be decided by the U.S.S.C.
It speaks specifically to "closely held",
Ironically you are pointing out holes in your own argument. The attorneys arguing "against" Hobby Lobby, were the ones suggesting that a corporation could not have religious views.
Hobby Lobby was determined to be a "closely held" corporation in such that all of the owners shared the same religious views, and that that company openly shared it's religious views on their website, in some of their advertising, in employee manuals, and even made business decisions (such as being close on Sunday) based on their religious beliefs.
There is no such religious consistency with any publicly held corporation. It's literally impossible to suggest that Dicks (like Hobby Lobby) is a Christian or any other sort of religious organization.
It's not a matter of what they might deem to be a religious argument. It's a matter that they simply don't qualify as a "closely held" religious corporation.
Ironically you are pointing out holes in your own argument. ...Hobby Lobby was determined to be a "closely held" corporation in such that all of the owners shared the same religious views
Not arguing against myself, just point out what the decision actually said and what the scope was. They spoke to the closely held corporation because that's what was specifically before them, and because there were no examples of publicly held corporations using the defense. What the decision did NOT do, contrary to what you suggest, is preclude the protection from publicly held corporations.
"It's not a matter of what they might deem to be a religious argument. It's a matter that they simply don't qualify as a "closely held" religious corporation."
It doesn't have to be a religious organization. In fact, the decision went into some depth explaining why the protections apply to for profit corporations and NOT exclusively to religious organizations.
hard hitting "this is an apple" CNN is coming at you with the trump jobs tracker
http://money.cnn.com/interactive/news/economy/trump-jobs-tracker/
Last updated January 5, 2018
Jobs created since Trump took office
1,839,000
Trump's promise: 25 million jobs in 10 years, or 208,333 jobs per month
He's off track
rrb said ... wp, CH has made a very direct legal argument as he addressed Dick's decision and subsequent potential legal woes..
Several pretty bad ones, prompting me to straighten them out. ALL of those arguments of his are basically diversions from the hypocrisy of holding Dickies to a different standard from the Christian bakery.
ch said "So, no... we do not know that the Baker's argument did not work. Ultimately it will be decided by the U.S.S.C."
As it stands now, the Appeals Court has ruled against them. At the very least you are premature to declare it a "legitimate defense" and Dickies as not having a legitimate legal defense. Especially when the highest court so far disagrees with you.
They spoke to the closely held corporation because that's what was specifically before them, and because there were no examples of publicly held corporations using the defense
Again... I have to believe you are trolling here, WP. Either that, or you simply have lost your ability to be even marginally logical.
Hobby Lobby (as determined by the court) was allowed to use the RFRA because they were a privately own company where all of the owners held the same religious views, and because their corporation openly shared and that business decisions were at times guided by those religious views. Four members of the court, did not agree that even a privately owned corporation with open religious views should be allowed protection... so this was a close legal decision.
Literally "none" of the arguments used by Hobby Lobby in order to be granted protection from the RFRA laws apply to a publicly traded company such as Dicks.
Several pretty bad ones, prompting me to straighten them out. ALL of those arguments of his are basically diversions from the hypocrisy of holding Dickies to a different standard from the Christian bakery.
- The fact is that the Christian Bakery qualifies for protection under the RFRA.
- The fact is that Dicks Sporting Good does not qualify for protection under the RFRA.
Your argument that the publicly traded Dicks Sporting Goods Corporation can make a religious argument and seek protection under the RFRA is mindbogglingly stupid at the core. So much so, that it cannot be taken seriously.
Again... I have to believe you are trolling here, WP. Either that, or you simply have lost your ability to be even marginally logical.
I just finished reading it CH, right before first posting about it, and I gave you exactly what the decision said. You're probably going from memory, and if so you recall incorrectly.
You should read it again, or for the first time more likely, before calling someone stupid. There is a reason why it seems "mind bogglingly stupid" to you: it's because you're mind-boggingly wrong about it. Even without everything else, your "two facts" tell me that you are not at all familiar with the appeals court decision in the bakery case.
ALL of those arguments of his are basically diversions from the hypocrisy of holding Dickies to a different standard from the Christian bakery.
because it's an apples/oranges comparison that you're making simply for the sake of a troll. there's no religious component to the Dick's decision. none. zero. zip. nada. once again you conflate morality - perceived in this case - with religion.
Dick's isn't making a morality play. Dick's is making a PC PR play. their motives are 100% self serving and have no legitimate bearing on the actual issue. Dick's is placing a wager that a little virtue signalling and (perceived by some to be) moral preening will benefit them more than it costs them. they're literally trying to calculate an ROI on this decision.
Dick's is assuming the role of corporate crisis actor hoping to fool enough folks into boosting their bottom line.
as constitutionally problematic as their decision is, part of me supports it from the perspective of preferring to do my firearms business with a locally owned small biz gun dealer. i've seen Dick's gun dept.sales clerks in action and it's one of the scarier things i've ever witnessed. giving responsibility for a deadly weapon to an individual who has barely mastered the cash register is a recipe for disaster.
You mean the kid who hid in the closet while his friends were shot
Yeah CH....Maybe you and your asshole kids would have done different.....I really doubt you or them would have had the ballz to rush th shooter....That my friend is the dumbest thing you have ever posted. I am sure your boys would be proud!!!!!!!
Rat the asshole posits
...as they eat tide pods for breakfast. they're imbecilic little drama queens
Again applying to the universe what a couple of idiots do....wonder if his gay boys have friends like the or have done it themselvest????? Idiot....
d0pie, since you are a self-proclaimed liberal, i'm left to wonder why you hate gays so much and why you would accuse others who you don't know of being gay like it's a bad thing.
Rat the fucking asshole makes his own reality up with
, i'm left to wonder why you hate gays so much and why you would accuse others who you don't know of being gay like it's a bad thing.
And I wonder why your grandfather was shot for being a horse thief......Idiot.....
RRB read the blog post that started this, and think again about who's made the comparison and why.
Coldheart wrote "I'll be curious about how those who believe that a baker must bake a cake for a same sex wedding in order to keep in line with anti-discrimination laws, will see this lawsuit? Will these same people side with the plaintiffs because they too are claiming discrimination? Or will they do the old 180?"
His comparison, his topic, his troll if you want to put it that way.
The main dissimilar thing about them, is that that Dicks could make a MUCH stronger claim to have based it on moral grounds than does the Christian Bakery. And however you want to squirm, moral behavior is the foundation of the practice of all religions, including your own.
I have been clear that Dicks will probably not use that defense, because it probably wouldn't work. It hasn't worked for the bakers either to date. You will not also that it is CH who brought that defense into the discussion, not I, in order to rationalize his hypocritical viewpoint. I don't support either business' discriminatory practices.
Yeah CH....Maybe you and your asshole kids would have done different.....I really doubt you or them would have had the ballz to rush th shooter...
I don't look to my kids or their friends for their political views, Opie. don't put them on a pedestal and I don't worship at the feet of 17 years old boys like you apparently do. They are just teenagers, who are several years away from having their brains attached.
Insult anyone you want in the hypothetical. The kid hid in the closet. He's not a hero. His statements are meaningless talking points regurgitation.
Again, the fact that a 17 year old boy impresses you... tells me much about who you are.
I just finished reading it CH, right before first posting about it, and I gave you exactly what the decision said.
Well good for you. Of course you seem oblivious to the fact that nothing about the decision even came close to suggesting it would ever apply to a publicly traded company.
I have been clear that Dicks will probably not use that defense, because it probably wouldn't work.
There is no probably about it. They won't because they cannot.
It hasn't worked for the bakers either to date.
Technically it has gotten the Baker a hearing in front of the USSC. Last time I checked, the Supreme Court does not take cases that have no legal merit. Moreover, the RFRA has been used successfully in court by plenty of other people (including Hobby Lobby and LSOTP) to allow themselves to opt out of certain federal laws.
I don't look to my kids or their friends for their political views,
Like that has to do anything with them running like you would CH.....I don't worship at their heels either, but having been a participant as a 17 year old when the Viet Nam war was raging and I was concerned about being sent to that war....I know what youngsters can do....I did not have the right to vote then and that changed....the war came to an end and I can feel I had some credit for making that happen while all you can do is complain they a bad actors and being manipulated by dems....That is complete BS as is your screed about you kids.... The kid hit in a closet because he was being shot at, something I hope you never have to face because you would do the same thing as an adult trying to stay alive...Saying anything else is pure BS since you have never had to face that fear....Until you do, bullshit on you again, brave poster....LOL at your faux bravery....
Good Morning Mr Opie.
How is your wife ?
Raise your hand if you think commie the coward would eat Tide pods... (raising my hand)
Tillerson is out
Secretary of State Tillerson out amid clashes with Trump, to be replaced by CIA Director Pompeo
Rex Tillerson is out as secretary of State, ending a tumultuous tenure as America's top diplomat.
Trump says CIA Director Mike Pompeo will replace the former Exxon Mobil chief executive.
He says Deputy CIA Director Gina Haspel will run the spy agency.
Good. I don't know anyone who has a particular love for tillerson.
Kd the jag off asked about my betrothed.....
And I wonder how his asshole is?????
And loretta adds her own brand of stupidity with a question about something she would do herself with tide.....Yep, her loathsome self raises her hand to jerk her marine off.....
He fired the man who called the President a "moron".
My Marine (a real man) stepped up to the plate, serving THREE tours of duty in Vietnam...
...while the commie hid under his bed.
Yep, the commie would indeed be a member of the Tide pod eating dumbasses.
myballs, I am surprised that it took this happen.
e who has a particular love for tillers.
Yep, pompous ass will be a whole lot more loved.....especially his thinking GW is a hoax.....a real genius..
Loretta the loathsome lesbian adds more to her brilliant commentary with
Yep, the commie would indeed be a member of the Tide pod eating dumbasses.
Yep, can't slip anything by this inept idiot....LOLOLOLO
Your Marine husband, (a real man) stepped up to the plate, serving THREE tours of duty in Vietnam...
...while the five bone chip coward Trump hid under his bed.
And I wonder how his asshole is?????
why would you be concerned about another man's asshole?
Bizarre
Yep, your marine wasn't as smart as trump to get a 5 deferments...I followed all the rules and missed the war when they ended the draft in 73....too fucking bad.....asshole
why would you be concerned about another man's asshole?
He's married to it, asshole.....
"while the five bone chip coward Trump hid under his bed."
While YOU used your flat feet as a deferment...
People in glass houses...
If you thought Trump was a coward then I guess you thought Bill Clinton was a real coward for skipping Vietnam and he didn't have any bone chips.
BTW bone chips in the foot does disqualify you for military service as does, flat feet, diabetes, and heart disease.
"why would you be concerned about another man's asshole?"
He's coming out of the closet?
Funny how the timing of the firing coincides with stormy's deadline....wonder how many pics. will come out and whether malodorous is happy?
BTW bone chips in the foot does disqualify
If he actually had them....he had a doctors note claiming he had them, idiot....Keep making excuses...that was one of the main way of getting out of service...just like having sugar under your fingernails when you took your piss test....Keep digging cramps...
Loathsome loser lesbian loretta tries again to be relevant with another attempt of being a man.....
He's coming out of the closet?
AWESOME, LOSER!!!! That really hurts.....LOLOLOLOL
Well Denny...
I wouldn't have listened to you when you were 17 either. It didn't matter what you were protesting. When I was 17 I was more interested in sports, girls, and cars... than politics.
Either way, at 17 people simply don't have the life experience, haven't had to be responsible, and are not mature enough to be national political leaders.
The fact than anyone would look to a 17 year old for political leadership is laughable.
"If you thought Trump was a coward then I guess you thought Bill Clinton was a real coward for skipping Vietnam and he didn't have any bone chips."
Exactly.
I guess you thought Bill Clinton was a real coward for skipping Vietnam and he didn't have any bone chips.
He had student deferments and a high draft number 311 that precluded hum from being drafted...Unlike trump who paid a doctor to write a letter to his draft board.....
He had student deferments and a high draft number 311 that precluded hum from being drafted...Unlike trump who paid a doctor to write a letter to his draft board.....
"Dear Colonel Holmes,
I am sorry to be so long in writing. I know I promised to let you hear from me at least once a month, and from now on you will, but I have had to have some time to think about this first letter. Almost daily since my return to England I have thought about writing, about what I want to and ought to say. First, I want to thank you, not just for saving me from the draft, but for being so kind and decent to me last summer, when I was as low as I have ever been. One thing which made the bond we struck in good faith somewhat palatable to me was my high regard for you personally. In retrospect, it seems that the admiration might not have been mutual had you known a little more about me, about my political beliefs and activities. At least you might have thought me more fit for the draft than for ROTC. Let me try to explain.
[...]
And that is where I am now, writing to you because you have been good to me and have a right to know what I think and feel. I am writing too in the hope that my telling this one story will help you to understand more clearly how so many fine people have come to find themselves still loving their country but loathing the military, to which you and other good men have devoted years, lifetimes, of the best service you could give. To many of us, it is no longer clear what is service and what is disservice, or if it is clear, the conclusion is likely to be illegal. Forgive the length of this letter. There was much to say. There is still a lot to be said, but it can wait. Please say hello to Colonel Jones for me. Merry Christmas.
Sincerely,
Bill Clinton"
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/draftletter.html
The fact than anyone would look to a 17 year old for political leadership is laughable.
THIS is CNN.
heh.
Rat the hole pace again proves he can C+P something that does not prove anything....he got student deferments and a high draft number....prove that wrong asshole...
When the first draft lottery of the Vietnam era was held on 1 December 1969, Clinton’s birthdate of 19 August was selected 311th, a number high enough to practically guarantee that he would not be drafted (and indeed he was not). A few days later, Clinton sat down and wrote the now-infamous letter to Colonel Holmes explaining his reasons for reneging on his agreement to enter the University of Arkansas and its ROTC program.
Thanx for playing rat hole.....
Surging small-business sentiment closes in on Reagan-era record
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/surging-small-business-sentiment-closes-in-on-reagan-era-record-2018-03-13
"That Bill Clinton went to great lengths to avoid the Vietnam-era draft, that he used political connections to obtain special favors, and that he made promises and commitments which he later failed to honor, are all beyond dispute."
from your snopes like d0pie.
Lol @ Opie.
I wish you and your wife all the best.
Rat hole changes the subject when losing, just like the liar in chief.....
Surging small-business sentiment closes in on Reagan-era record
Can't show me I am wrong, can you rat the hole.....change the subject just like the pussy you are....LOLOL
KD the sterile heifer lover sends his regards....
Yeah sure, asshole.....Coming from a low life like you, I really couldn't care less about you and your heifer......
from your slopes like d0pie.
And how does him writing a letter change the fact he got deferments and a high draft number???? Yep, keep posting loser, your opinion has been shoved up your ass.... Nice try though,
Here's what you conveniently left out....
because none of his actions, no matter how unethical or morally questionable they might have been, were illegal. When Clinton agreed in July of 1969 to enter the advanced ROTC program at the University of Arkansas, his draft board rescinded his induction notice and reclassified him with a reservist’s deferment. That he later changed his mind in October 1969 and opted to forego the ROTC program and be reclassified 1-A did not constitute a “failure to report” or make him “AWOL.” At the time of his 1-A re-classification in October 1969 the previous induction notice was no longer in effect, and he was not subsequently re-drafted.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! at you again, rat the hole....Trunp bought a letter from a doctor....which was not illegal either....it was just pure bullshit that those with money got away with......
"Surging small-business sentiment closes in on Reagan-era record"
MAGA.
he got student deferments
Like most rich kids, including the Kennedys, they used their political connections to get those defermints.
Why do you think Vietnam was called a "rich man's war and a poor man's fight".
Of course you seem oblivious to the fact that nothing about the decision even came close to suggesting it would ever apply to a publicly traded company.
I gave you two direct quotes from the decision, showing where you were wrong. I can't force you to read it and understand it.
Regardless of whether Dickie's "can't" or "won't" use that particular legal defense, you have admitted that they have another more viable legal defense. Which shows the hypocrisy of your position, supporting one business' discrimination but not the other because, you claimed, they had no "legitimate" legal argument.
I know that you'd rather avoid that and deflect into some specious legal argument about the merits of some hypothetical defense, but the fact remains that both companies discriminated, both companies make a legal case for it, and as *you* originally suggested, it is hypocritical to deplore the discrimination by one and not the other.
Here's what you conveniently left out....
i never claimed clinton to be a criminal d0pie. just a coward. he became a criminal - a rapist - later in life.
so thanks for refuting a claim in never made, you dumb fuck.
"That he later changed his mind in October 1969 and opted to forego the ROTC program and be reclassified 1-A ..." and then was dick enough to write that letter to the recruiter, gloating about it. How he loathed the military, and disparaging the Colonel's service.
Can't give Trump the edge over that though. Calling himself "like a great and very brave soldier" because of the danger of STD's, "scary, like Vietnam ... my personal Vietnam" also has that gloating edge to it. If a 10-year old could gloat about getting out of the war.
i never claimed clinton to be a criminal d0pie. just a coward.
SURE RAT THE HOLE....,,,,,BUT TRUMP GETS A PASS BUYING A DR'S NOTE!!!!!
Just like those bad actor kids ducking out of the line of fire were cowards,....You called HIM A DRAFT DODGER....You do realize there was a draft at that time because there weren't enough people enlisting to maintain troop levels and clinton didn't have the financials to buy a doctor which donnie's daddy did......And don't forget W who got into the national guard, learned to fly an obsolete jet and avoided deployment because of that.....Yeah....trump pass, clinton coward...>LOLOLOLOL!!!!!
Rat the hole once again posts about something I never said....
never claimed clinton to be a criminal d0pie so thanks for refuting a claim in never made, you dumb fuck.
Show me the post that I said you claimed clinton was a criminal....I just gave you the rest of what you forgot to post from snopes....which really said nothing he did was outside the bounds of what most were doing at the time......Nice try douche nozzle....LOL
Still can't refute clinton didn't get a high draft number or deferments can you rat hole....But, you can call him a coward while trump was using his daddy's wealth to dodge the draft is being brave....You are such a douche bag rat hole whose own kids would have been hiding like those bad actors if someone was shooting at them....Just like our brave CH who thinks being shot at is just an everyday occurrence.....idiots...
Commie the coward still can't put two sentences together, lol.
WP...
Here is a little challenge for you.
You have stated that you do not believe that Dick's argument is a very good one. You have stated that the are liking going to lose this one in court.
So obviously the argument of "public good" is not a winner in your mind, and most legal experts (actually all that I have read) agree.
Show me some legal experts (not counting yourself of course) who are addressing the possibility that Dicks will use the RFRA as their defense.
If the defense is as legitimate as you are arguing, and the defense they do have is a sure loser (as even you have admitted)... then obviously smart legal minds would be suggesting your alternative to Dicks.
After all, the Baker has gone before the USSC and probably convinced four or five Justices that he has a case.
You claim that Dicks has a better case with the same argument.
Certainly, if your theory is correct, then you are not the "only" person in the world to see it.
Back your claim with legal expert agreement.
Loretta the loathsome loser again steps on her floppy tits with
Again, I suspect that any response from Schiff will be little more than a foot stomping,
Wow,,,,,you are so prescient, loathsome....Call someone who gives a shit like you loser marine....LOL
You're still not following, CH. The only reason we're talking about RFRA is because *you* brought it up to draw a (mostly false) distinction between Dickie's discrimination and the Christian Bakery's discrimination. You claim that Dickie's is prohibited from that defense, and that's your big difference.
I simply proved, to an objective perspective, that nothing in the RFRA NOR in the Hobby Lobby decision prohibits a publicly traded corporation from that defense.
"After all, the Baker has gone before the USSC and probably convinced four or five Justices " - in your partial imagination perhaps. As it stands now, their arguments failed in the Appeals Court. The USSC has yet to render a decision.
It's a tiny thing, this distinction you're trying to make, and that tiny distinction is the only thing you want to address. Even though if true it wouldn't make your position less hypocritical, and in reality it doesn't even hold up.
I challenge you to cite ANY of these "unanimous" legal minds who you claim disagree with me. An actual quote, precedent, ANYTHING that specifically refutes me. As is usually the case, you won't be finding any.
Again, I suspect that any response from Schiff will be little more than a foot stomping
And right on cue Schiff does his foot stomping.
All he has is whining because the Intelligence Committee won't spend another 12 to 14 months chasing after a nonexistent conspiracy.
"Loretta the loathsome loser again steps on her floppy tits with
Again, I suspect that any response from Schiff will be little more than a foot stomping,"
No I didn't you dumbass.
And with respect to your challenge, the Appeals Court 10th Circuit, Judge Timothy M Tymkovich:
"We see no reason the Supreme Court would recognize constitutional protection for a corporation's political expression but not its religious expression."
Not just closely held, not just non-profit, but corporations have first amendment protections, and this majority opinion declares "no reason" why these same corporations would not also have protection for their religious expression.
Also note that among the corporations suing over the ACA on religious grounds is one Autocam Corporation, whose initial public offering was in 1991.
I simply proved, to an objective perspective, that nothing in the RFRA NOR in the Hobby Lobby decision prohibits a publicly traded corporation from that defense.
thanks for confirming that you've been playing a false narrative / semantic troll this entire thread. of course nothing prohibits Dick's from using that defense. the question is - why would they? perhaps they should use a vehicle and traffic law defense as if they were trying to beat a speeding ticket?
No I didn't you dumbass.
Fatty has been noshing on Tide pods with a side lead paint chips
He simply can't follow a thread
a false narrative / semantic troll this entire thread. of course nothing prohibits Dick's from using that defense. the question is - why would they
Ask ColdHeart; the hypothetical defense is his issue and one that he keeps going back to no matter how often I steer him away. He's the guy who based his entire position on it being prohibited to Dick's.
How about you, RRB? Do YOU support the Christian bakery's discrimination because they (potentially) have a "legitimate religious argument" and condemn Dicks because like CH you believe they don't? Do you hold the same standard to both like I do? Or is your position purely political?
. You claim that Dickie's is prohibited from that defense, and that's your big difference.
No more prohibited from using that defense, than they would be from using an insanity defense. Which is probably your best defense of your argument here.
Again, I stated 100% factually.... that the Baker used the RFRA as a legitimate defense. A defense that has warranted a case before the USSC, which many legal experts suggest that he might actually win, and worst case probably gets four Justices in his favor.
I also stated 100% factually... that Dicks Sporting Goods does NOT have the advantage of using a similar defense of political views.
Furthermore, I stand 100% behind the fact that Dicks would not qualify as a closely held corporation for RFRA and that a choice to not sel guns to people 18-20 is not a Religious argument.
I will ultimately prevail in this argument "UNLESS" Dicks Sporting Goods proves me wrong by making the argument. But we both know that they will not make that argument, because they have real attorneys who have to follow the laws... and are not just total trolls attempting to argue a stupid point to death.
How about you, RRB? Do YOU support the Christian bakery's discrimination because they (potentially) have a "legitimate religious argument" and condemn Dicks because like CH you believe they don't? Do you hold the same standard to both like I do? Or is your position purely political?
i'm an advocate of the bakery's religious freedom objection.
i do not see a religious angle in Dicks' case. i've said that from the start. in fact, i've laid out my opinion of Dicks and their decision quite clearly. religion or morality was the furthest thing from their mind when they decided to discriminate against 18-20 yr old's.
i don't hold them both to the same standard because the same standard does not apply, no matter how hard you try to pound that square peg into the round hole.
Actually it's 100% Incorrect ... that Dicks Sporting Goods cannot use "a similar defense of political views."
I could show you a number of decisions where free speech protections are specifically and explicitly equated to religious expression protections as analogous arguments. In other words, protection of their expression of political views are literally similar to protection of religious expression.
"Furthermore, I stand 100% behind the fact that Dicks would not qualify as a closely held corporation for RFRA and that a choice to not sel guns to people 18-20 is not a Religious argument."
Man, you continue to miss the point, probably deliberately at this juncture. Nobody including me has ever suggested that Dicks is "closely held", and the RFRA includes NO restriction on what kind of corporation is protected. In fact there is nothing in the RFRA about corporations, of any kind.
So you can "stand behind" Dicks not being "closely held" if you want, and no one will disagree. You can also "stand behind" your imaginary restrictions in the RFRA, but won't place it into the Act. And as for "not a Religious argument", that's your opinion only. Most people would think that not killing people is a more credible expression of religion than not baking a cake, but you can stand behind that if you want.
I will ultimately prevail in this argument "UNLESS" Dicks Sporting Goods proves me wrong by making the argument.
CH, literally any argument they make will prove you wrong here. Your entire position is based on your claim that Dicks has "no legitimate" legal argument, and your own weird (and 100% false) opinion that an RFRA argument is "more legitimate" than any alternative argument that Dick's will make.
... religion or morality was the furthest thing from their mind when they decided to discriminate against 18-20 yr old's.
... i don't hold them both to the same standard because the same standard does not apply, no matter how hard you try to pound that square peg into the round hole.
I have the same opinion of the bakers, that religion and morality was the furthest thing from their minds when they decided to discriminate. As was pointed out, perhaps by you, and with some justification, that's not up to me to evaluate if it's *their* religion and *their* morality.
Dicks, yeh it's probably virtue signalling and cynically heading off future lawsuits in my opinion, BUT if they did claim that it's morally wrong to sell those guns to youths, I have to grant that as a legal argument and it is the same as the bakers claiming that it's morally wrong to sell the cake. If Dicks tried a RFRA argument - and they could - I'd grant that it is exactly the same standards to judge against.
The difference is that I don't think either one has a real case for a "substantial burden on their religion", while you folks are looking at BOTH cases from a purely political standpoint.
I have the same opinion of the bakers, that religion and morality was the furthest thing from their minds when they decided to discriminate.
Which is quite wrong given these basic facts.
1. The bakers are pious and devout Christians.
2. There are no less than 25 biblical passages condemning homosexual acts as sinful.
3. In Christianity promoting or suborning a sin is as sinful (if not more sinful) than the original sin.
So I would say their faith and conscience was very much in their minds when they refused service.
CH, literally any argument they make will prove you wrong here. Your entire position is based on your claim that Dicks has "no legitimate" legal argument, and your own weird (and 100% false) opinion that an RFRA argument is "more legitimate" than any alternative argument that Dick's will make.
There is quite literally a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that is in play with the Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case. Little Sister of the poor, and many others have successfully argued that they did not have to follow certain laws because those laws interfered with their deeply held religious views.
There is quite literally no such law as it pertains to any exemptions to laws based on political affiliation. Someone cannot decide to opt out of gun control laws because they are a Republican, a member of the NRA, and have deeply held second amendment views.
But... I do appreciate you conceding that Dicks will not be using the RFRA as their upcoming defense. It took a while, but you finally saw the light.
To recap something, I met your challenge CH. I provided you with an opinion from a decision of the 10th Circuit, and additionally another case currently being litigated. Which you've wisely decided to ignore ...
You have yet to meet my converse challenge. Any legal opinion that you can quote, any precedent, that publicly held corporations are prohibited from an RFRA defense.
One would think that at least the government lawyers would have tried your reasoning in the case I gave you, were it as sound as you seem to believe, let alone universally accepted ...
But... I do appreciate you conceding that Dicks will not be using the RFRA as their upcoming defense. It took a while, but you finally saw the light.
Dude ... I told you in the very first post, and in almost every successive one, that I don't believe Dicks would be using it. I told you why I thought they wouldn't be.
You must be too obstinate to even read what you're arguing against ...
cs said Which is quite wrong given these basic facts. 1. The bakers are pious and devout Christians. ...
We've already gone over this, and I personally dispute your points with good reason including but not limited to doctrine, so let's not go over it again. I think they're as hypocritical as I think Dick's is, but as I told RRB the legitimacy of their legal argument has little to do with that. Same as with Dick's
CH said ... There is quite literally a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ... There is quite literally no such law as it pertains to any exemptions to laws based on political affiliation.
The RFRA provides that the "Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion".
The Government may not substantially burden a person's exercise of free speech. It must be indirect. Any allowable burden must be no more than necessary to serve an important government interest.
Neither one is concerned with "exemptions" of any law. They are restrictions placed on the enforcement of laws.
Your construction here is bizarre.
Dude ... I told you in the very first post, and in almost every successive one, that I don't believe Dicks would be using it. I told you why I thought they wouldn't be.
but why did you bring it up to begin with if not to launch a troll? RFRA was never on Dicks radar as a reason to discriminate against 18-20 year old's, or as a defense of doing so.
so you literally brought it up for no good reason whatsoever.
I think they're as hypocritical as I think Dick's is
so what's your burden of proof, or burden of sincerity when it comes to believing what is driving the bakery? does being gay ALWAYS trump being religious? sexual preference is more equal than faith? wp, we have gays trolling bakers, wedding venue owners, wedding planners, just to satisfy some sick desire to fuck with people who think different. where does it all end, and when do the religious ever get equal representation / protection under the law?
if you're not going to believe one devoutly religious baker why would you believe any of them?
What i don't get is the Colorado baker never denied to serve the gays when they came in during normal business operations. He had an issue entering into a distinct separate contract, with them. I disagree with his belief but believe he ha a right to do so.
They could come in during normal operations, eat at his counter and were served.
Their religious objection is not the fact they are "gay" their objection is to the sanctification of a sexual relationship they considered a sin (The "marriage" itself).
Baking a cake celebration the wedding (the secular legitimization of the sin) is promoting the sin itself.
That is their objection and reason why they can serve gays in any other capacity except bake a wedding or a wedding anniversary cake.
Something WP can't (or won't) get his head around.
To recap something, I met your challenge CH. I provided you with an opinion from a decision of the 10th Circuit, and additionally another case currently being litigated. Which you've wisely decided to ignore
Actually I challenged you to find a legal expert who suggested that Dicks was going to use the RFRA as their defense, since you suggested it was stronger than the defense that the Baker used.
btw, WP....
From your Autocam lawsuit
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Petitioner Autocam Corporation is a Michigan
business corporation. It does not have parent companies
and is not publicly held. No publicly held company
owns 10% or more of the company’s stock.
Petitioner Autocam Medical, LLC is a Michigan
limited liability company. It does not have parent
companies and is not publicly held. No publicly held
company owns 10% or more of the company’s stock.
The Kennedys are individual persons.
Petitioners are members of the Kennedy family
and the two companies through which the Kennedys
do business (referred to collectively as “Autocam”).
When the petitioners run their business, they follow
the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. By
virtue of their religious obligation to treat workers
well, petitioners provide their employees with a
generous (indeed award-winning), healthcare benefits
plan including up to $1,500 towards a Health Savings
Account (which employees are free to use for any
lawful purpose). By virtue of their religious obligation
to avoid material cooperation with acts believed to be
morally wrong, petitioners have never provided
coverage or payments for abortion-inducing drugs,
contraceptive drugs or devices, or sterilization.
_____
try again...
A cake doesn't "sanctify" anything LOL. They are overtly and completely worried about how it looks, and nothing else. That is the opposite of a sincerely held religious belief.
Appeals Court 10th Circuit, Judge Timothy M Tymkovich:
"We see no reason the Supreme Court would recognize constitutional protection for a corporation's political expression but not its religious expression."
Do you seriously suggest that the 10th Circuit judge is NOT a legal expert, CH?
A cake doesn't "sanctify" anything LOL.
Now you are being deliberately dense. It's not the cake, it's the wedding that sanctifies the act.
Why did you think gays pushed the marriage issue to begin with? Domestic partnerships were being recognized in law as equivalent to a heterosexual marriage but that wasn't good enough LGBT activists.
For the unbeliever (I assume you're one) marriage conveys societal approval of the union where as domestic partnerships are morally neutral.
For the believer, marriage is a union blessed and sanctified by God.
Since God (In the bible) said homsexual unions are sinful, the bakers were in a conundrium.
Baking a "wedding" cake amounted to participation in and promoting a lie.
That they could not do.
Do you consider the third circuit Appeals Court to be a "legal expert"?
" We are dealing here with a closely held corporation,
and we need not determine whether or how a publicly traded
corporation, with widely distributed ownership, might
endeavor to exercise religion. Those issues can be left for
another day."
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Not obtuse, basic reasoning. They were willing to sell a cake for a wedding CS, therefore it's not the wedding's sanctity that they were concerned about.
Customizing the cake for them, ie, how it looked for their business, that was the concern. It's the public veneer of religious practice, the antithesis of a sincerely held belief.
Need I point out how Jesus reacted to people who behaved that way?
WP...
by your own admission, the 10th circuit court was ruling on a closely held privately own corporation (in this case Autocam). If you read more on this, you will see that courts have been very divided on whether or not the owners of a closely held corporation can invoke the RFRA. Ultimately it's been largely considered on a case by case basis (generally the owners need to show that their business decisions have previously been guided by religious beliefs). Obviously cases (such as Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters of the poor) ended up in the USSC.
If the courts are struggling to accept religious owners of closely held private corporations as being allowed to use the RFRA (requiring that they show a strong religious influence in the business itself)... what chance is a CEO of a public organization going to have in convincing a court that his religious views qualify under RFRA... when the business in question has nothing do to with religion?
So, again... the 10th circuit Judge did not make any sort of ruling that a publicly held corporation can qualify for the RFRA. To argue as such is simply wrong.
This is more classic WP...
You initially argued that the Autocam case was precedent to a possible Dicks case because you argued that Autocam was a publicly traded public corporation... when in fact they were a privately owned corporation with a small group of family owners, who held religious views that influenced their business decisions.
Now you are looking to save face, by basically making a determination that a Judge did not talk specifically about publicly held corporation as somehow proof that a publicly held corporation can invoke RFRA.
Customizing the cake for them, ie, how it looked for their business, that was the concern.
How it looked for their business WP?
I dare say that if they actually baked a cake for a gay wedding they would have been feted by most progressive people and certainly the news media. They would be heroes to most of these people but they have sinned before God.
AndI do know Jesus said about the promotion of sin:
But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
Matthew 18:6
So, again... the 10th circuit Judge did not make any sort of ruling that a publicly held corporation can qualify for the RFRA. To argue as such is simply wrong.
And that is the closest that you're likely to come to finding any precedent precluding publicly held corporations from RFRA. Which was your claim, and my challenge. Yes, for you to argue that this ruling restricts it to closely held corporations is simply wrong.
His reasoning and wording applies to any corporation including publicly held. He didn't specifically say "oh yeah, and also publicly held corporations", because "publicly held" wasn't before him. But he referred to ANY corporation there.
The 3rd Circuit specifically DID say "publicly held" and specifically did say that it was NOT precluded, but rather a different question for a different day.
Classic WP indeed, proving my case with actual court cites.
Well WP...
No publicly held corporation has ever attempted to use the RFRA (and for good reason). No publicly held corporation will attempt to use the RFRA. Certainly Dicks will not use the RFRA argument...
as much as you and your legal expertise suggests it's a wonderful argument.
By definition a publicly held corporation has many owners with various views on religion.
And by definition most owners of publicly held corporation have little input into the policies and operation of the company.
Therefore, the entity itself cannot have a particular religious view that is protected by RFRA and the 1st amendment.
That shouldn't be hard for the "legal expert" to understand.
No publicly held corporation has ever attempted to use the RFRA (and for good reason). No publicly held corporation will attempt to use the RFRA. Certainly Dicks will not use the RFRA argument.
Well Hobby Lobby was the first, the landmark in 2014, and there was widespread consternation over that decision also. So that's not really much of a distinction.
You don't know that no publicly held corporation will ever try it, and for sure you have no certainty over it. The 3rd Circuit Judge absolutely did not share your certainty of view, nor even uncertainly for that matter. He said that would be a different case, for a different day. In reality you only know that it will be difficult.
"as much as you and your legal expertise suggests it's a wonderful argument."
I'm still waiting for your case citations, or your legal cites. So far all you've provided is your unsupported, sole opinion. Against which I've shown you TWO Circuit Judge opinions that suggest otherwise.
And by definition most owners of publicly held corporation have little input into the policies and operation of the company.
No definition of public holding requires this. This is one of the "difficulties" that some of these cases have noted
If you look at it objectively, it is not necessarily required that all of the shareholders are in agreement, for the religious convictions of a corporation to be protected. It's far easier if there are only a few individuals, but even in THAT case they STILL had to demonstrate that the business practices, the business philosophy, and policies enacted by executive employees all reflected the "sincerely held" religious convictions.
Nothing in that prevents the same from being true of publicly held corporations. A board of directors and the CEO could direct the company to reflect religious principles for example, and the shareholders could approve. Maybe, only the guy setting policy would be sufficient. That hasn't been tested yet.
The difficulty lies in showing that the convictions are sincerely held and actually implemented. The even greater difficulty exists in BOTH cases, that of showing "substantial impact" on the religious expression.
CS you should have no doubt that the Pharisees just loved to proclaim the same sort of thing in public, so that everyone would know how pious they were. Loved to quote their scripture.
It's not the scripture that's phony, it's the Pharisees, which you'd have known if you'd understood the reference. I'm surprised that you failed to catch it.
CS you should have no doubt that the Pharisees just loved to proclaim the same sort of thing in public
Those aren't the words of a Pharisee and you seem to have a rather prejudice view of the faithful as bible quoting hypocrites.
The great majority are not. However, it's rather hard to explain their faith without a biblical quote or two.
You claim that scripture is not phoney yet you deny the plain meaning of it.
That's a rather ambiguous position.
Well Hobby Lobby was the first, the landmark in 2014, and there was widespread consternation over that decision also. So that's not really much of a distinction.
Hobby Lobby is a private organization with a closely held number of owners who share a religious belief. They are not a publicly traded stockholder owned company.
Btw... here is what the USSC had to say about the subject in the Hobby Lobby Ruling:
These cases, however, do not involve publicly traded corporations, and it seems unlikely that the sort of corporate giants to which HHS refers will often assert RFRA claims. HHS has not pointed to any example of a publicly traded corporation asserting RFRA rights, and numerous practical restraints would likely prevent that from occurring. For example, the idea that unrelated shareholders—including institutional investors with their own set of stakeholders—would agree to run a corporation under the same religious beliefs seems improbable. In any event, we have no occasion in these cases to consider RFRA’s applicability to such companies. The companies in the cases before us are closely held corporations, each owned and controlled by members of a single family, and no one has disputed the sincertity of their religious beliefs
Which in a nutshell, the USSC held that Hobby Lobby could seek relief under RFRA was entirely because they are owned and controlled by members of a single family. Moreover, you can determine (based on that consistency) that they have sincere religious beliefs and they could show that they ran their company according to those beliefs.
The USSC majority opinion concludes (as I have) that the idea that a publicly traded company being able to agree to run a company under a particular religious belief is improbable and that number practical restraints would preclude any publicly held company to seek RFRA relief.
In order to make such a claim, a publicly held company like Dicks would have to show that not only do all of the shareholders hold the same religious views, but that those shareholders agreed to run Dick's based on those religious beliefs. At this point in time, there are no such companies in existence.
So you can go ahead and cite your 10th circuit judge if you want. But the USSC settles this issue in the Hobby Lobby ruling.
Oh and WP...
before you go off into the land of semantics and the hypothetical...
Remember that this argument started because you felt that Dicks not only could make a valid legal argument (under the religious freedom and restoration act) that not selling guns to 18-20 year old people was a religious action.
But you argued that their RFRA case would ultimately be a stronger one than the baker had.
Which basically means that arguing that it's "possible" that some hypothetical/nonexistent publicly traded company could somehow pull off being a faith based company with closely held religious beliefs that translated into their business decision... is not going to get you anywhere.
Dicks is not that organization. In fact no such publicly traded stockholder owned organization has ever existed and likely never could. At least not according to the logic of the USSC majority (which is sort of the gold standard here).
Post a Comment