General Discussion

oldhippie

(3,249 posts)

25. Employees are not slaves .....

Reply to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #19)

Wed Mar 26, 2014, 09:26 AM

Mar 2014

They don't have to do ANYTHING their employer requires. They have the ability to just leave, and the employer cannot stop them. So, no, neither you nor your son had to do those things.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

70 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Here's a point about the Hobby Lobby case that no one is addressing . . . [View all] markpkessinger Mar 2014 OP

An interesting thought, thanks jmowreader Mar 2014 #1

I see it as a "reverse piercing of the corporate veil". Legal term for corporation being SharonAnn Mar 2014 #65

Let's hope the Opus Dei branch of the Supremes figures this one out, too. Warpy Mar 2014 #2

Mike Papantonio talked about this on the Ed Show. cui bono Mar 2014 #3

Thanks for the tip -- I will watch it now! n/t markpkessinger Mar 2014 #5

You're welcome! cui bono Mar 2014 #6

He said the same thing to Thom Hartmann The Blue Flower Mar 2014 #55

Imagine every corporate CEO, CFO, CIO, VP, etc. being *personally* liable for corporate products? Roland99 Mar 2014 #56

Here is SCOTUSblog: blkmusclmachine Mar 2014 #4

And those conservative justices call themselves "strict constructionists". Enthusiast Mar 2014 #8

Actually, I can prove that Scalia is not a "strict constructionist" Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2014 #12

Thank you, Fortinbras Armstrong. Scalia is a picker and chooser, Enthusiast Mar 2014 #17

Corporations are people my friend passiveporcupine Mar 2014 #7

This is a can of worms. Predatory worms. Enthusiast Mar 2014 #9

YES! Maraya1969 Mar 2014 #10

K&R. Same for some of the Koch's enterprises. JDPriestly Mar 2014 #11

My real problem with the Hobby Lobby case Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2014 #13

i agree, but I think the conservative response to your point would be . . . markpkessinger Mar 2014 #16

My eldest son works for a Muslim Fortinbras Armstrong Mar 2014 #19

Employees are not slaves ..... oldhippie Mar 2014 #25

But that begs the question... Whiskeytide Mar 2014 #29

One way to look at that question, .... oldhippie Mar 2014 #34

That's a libertarian argument that is in complete opposition to any thought gollygee Mar 2014 #39

Not the first such position taken by that poster. Ikonoklast Mar 2014 #44

I think it was Helen Gurley Brown that said the same Ilsa Mar 2014 #31

Message auto-removed Name removed Mar 2014 #57

I have been wondering why Fox has been eerily downplaying the hearing, this Fred Sanders Mar 2014 #14

bone marrow grafting for cancer treatment, also. nt Ilsa Mar 2014 #32

Ruling in favor of HL would definitely pierce the corporate veil. Ikonoklast Mar 2014 #45

This Supreme Court Is Irrational DallasNE Mar 2014 #15

DU is an LLC. Let's pass a law that says, in spite of Skinner's personal beliefs Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2014 #18

Slightly wrong. oldhippie Mar 2014 #26

Noted and appreciated. Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2014 #33

That Is Indeed, Sir, A Camel's Nose In The Tent That is Widely Over-Looked The Magistrate Mar 2014 #20

Another unnoticed elephant in the room randr Mar 2014 #21

Excellent point! theHandpuppet Mar 2014 #28

I'm not sure I want any employer giving me healthcare, whether earned or not ... oldhippie Mar 2014 #35

To Flesh That Out A Bit, Sir The Magistrate Mar 2014 #42

My point exactly randr Mar 2014 #47

Thank you, exactly! n/t RKP5637 Mar 2014 #52

Is HL actually paying any part of the premiums for the health insurance? Roland99 Mar 2014 #62

Turns out there was an amicus brief filed in this case that fleshes out my point above . . . markpkessinger Mar 2014 #22

nice Roland99 Mar 2014 #50

Limited Liability Companies are check the box and offer limited liability joeglow3 Mar 2014 #23

the 'supreme' court should have never allowed this case on their docket. spanone Mar 2014 #24

The Supreme Court needed to consider the case because different Circuit Courts have come to opposite PoliticAverse Mar 2014 #27

You are right, although certain justices would disagree with you an me. lumpy Mar 2014 #37

I agree. By their actions they are seeking to COLGATE4 Mar 2014 #30

That was my impression as well . . . markpkessinger Mar 2014 #38

It's a solution in search of a problem nt COLGATE4 Mar 2014 #40

Special cases are allowed as long as they damage Obamacare. Kablooie Mar 2014 #36

Good point Rider3 Mar 2014 #41

Very good - you are smarter TBF Mar 2014 #43

Here is the "Summary of Argument" from the amicus brief . . . markpkessinger Mar 2014 #46

So..."insider reverse veil piercing" is without precedent? Roland99 Mar 2014 #51

Thank you for posting that! n/t DebJ Mar 2014 #61

In other words, how can a corporation be religious? BlueStreak Mar 2014 #48

Completely accurate...... Swede Atlanta Mar 2014 #49

My religious convictions The Wizard Mar 2014 #53

YES! elleng Mar 2014 #54

Good point, I also have a point which I have not seen mentioned. DrewFlorida Mar 2014 #58

That is actually somewhat problematic . . . markpkessinger Mar 2014 #67

This issue has been bothering me, too. I wonder if the attorneys briefed it? The Velveteen Ocelot Mar 2014 #59

Good point framed very well. Auntie Bush Mar 2014 #60

It should depend on the unemployment rate Lefty Thinker Mar 2014 #63

That's a good point MH1 Mar 2014 #64

Exactly! The corporate SCOTUS know this all too well. mountain grammy Mar 2014 #66

Exactly. applegrove Mar 2014 #68

Fundamentalist Religion will be the demise of this country .. Christian Fascism YOHABLO Mar 2014 #69

Typical of the greed in capitalism... they want their cake and to eat it too. gtar100 Mar 2014 #70