The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 31 of 58 FirstFirst ... 21293031323341 ... LastLast
Results 601 to 620 of 1148
  1. #601
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    Packing my bags
    Posts
    31,417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hosspuller View Post
    So .. You wish 1000's of their employees to lose their job and suffer. HL is not stupid. Asset liquidation will net them more money, for the same effect.
    Unemployement benefits for those 1000's will cost the gov't (you & me) big time.

    In a game of chicken... Immediate business halt with 1000's of employees furloughed is pretty big statement. Judge Sotomeyer says it's no big deal.

    Which is the stupid course of action?
    won't even make a ripple in the unemployment rates.

    Then he would show his real colors, no?
    I mean, after all, I am sure the claim is he is being persecuted for his believes....

    But I doubt he will go that far....after all, he made pretty good money, selling crap made in China (one child policy anyone?, LATE term abortions....)

    so I doubt his convictions - the moral kind - will cause him to throw away the goose laying golden eggs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozart View Post
    Personally, I think the moderate use of shock collars in training humans should be allowed.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  2. #602
    Join Date
    Feb. 6, 2003
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    14,613

    Default

    Swings and roundabouts.
    ... _. ._ .._. .._



  3. #603
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    Packing my bags
    Posts
    31,417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Equibrit View Post
    Swings and roundabouts.
    dosie dos as well?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozart View Post
    Personally, I think the moderate use of shock collars in training humans should be allowed.



  4. #604
    Join Date
    Apr. 1, 2008
    Posts
    4,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alagirl View Post
    so I doubt his convictions - the moral kind - will cause him to throw away the goose laying golden eggs.
    I do not think he will throw it away, he will sell it.



  5. #605
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    17,459

    Default

    Hostage taking only works if you're willing or able to make it appear you are willing to kill the hostage. I doubt HL is willing.
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    3 members found this post helpful.

  6. #606
    Join Date
    Feb. 23, 2005
    Location
    Spotsylvania, VA
    Posts
    12,957

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hosspuller View Post
    Sounds like HL is a business owned by a family, not a public corporation. As such they are within their rights to do anything short of illegal with the business. They have no fiduciary duty to anyone. Pay above minimum wage, close on Sunday, etc. The issue is ACA makes illegal a non-act... Not paying for abortions, BC or what-ever. The owners object.

    Would not you object if the gov't said to you ... You must feed x feed to your owned horse everyday or suffer a significant fine.

    I would .. and if I owned HL with enough money for the rest of my life. I would give the business up before compromising my morals.

    But then I'm much more unforgiving and stubborn about such.
    HL is a indeed family owned corporation. However it does not matter if a corporation is owned by a family or a bunch of shareholders. The HL corporation is subject to the same laws as other corporations.

    The Green family incorporated their business giving it an identity separate from the family.
    I wasn't always a Smurf
    Penmerryl's Sophie RIDSH
    "I ain't as good as I once was but I'm as good once as I ever was"
    The ignore list is my friend. It takes 2 to argue.


    7 members found this post helpful.

  7. #607
    Join Date
    Nov. 18, 2010
    Location
    california
    Posts
    4,107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cheval convert View Post
    So, let's see if I have this straight, when someone, not you, quotes me and then makes a statement referring to the quote, the statement is not about me or the quote in particular but about all people of faith (in this instance) in general. I'm sure most of them would prefer not to be lumped together with me nor spoken for by me. I am not known for being a very good Catholic. (And most of the Christian world would definitely prefer not to be associated with a Catholic, we are a cult you know)
    Your ideas and statements are what is being addressed on a BB, not you personally. Wow, clearly you do make a choice to take things personally. You sure like to refer to your religion as some reason for people not accepting your views, too bad it has nothing to do with it.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  8. #608
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    Packing my bags
    Posts
    31,417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by threedogpack View Post
    I do not think he will throw it away, he will sell it.
    won't bother me non. Then I can go shopping there on Sundays.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozart View Post
    Personally, I think the moderate use of shock collars in training humans should be allowed.


    6 members found this post helpful.

  9. #609
    Join Date
    Feb. 5, 2010
    Posts
    2,434

    Default

    I know I've asked this at least twice, but nobody seems to want to answer me. So I will ask once more and then let it go.

    What if HL wins the case, which sets a precedent for employees picking/choosing which healthcare they want to cover based on their religious beliefs.

    Then a Christian Scientist-based company claims they should not have to cover ANY healthcare, as that goes against their religious beliefs. Since you can't discriminate based on religion, their claim would be valid.

    Then businesses see a legal way to not pay for any healthcare, so they all claim to be Christian Scientists. Then nobody has any healthcare.

    And then we all complain on COTH that how could this happen, especially in America?


    3 members found this post helpful.

  10. #610
    Join Date
    Nov. 2, 2001
    Location
    Packing my bags
    Posts
    31,417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frizzle View Post
    I know I've asked this at least twice, but nobody seems to want to answer me. So I will ask once more and then let it go.

    What if HL wins the case, which sets a precedent for employees picking/choosing which healthcare they want to cover based on their religious beliefs.

    Then a Christian Scientist-based company claims they should not have to cover ANY healthcare, as that goes against their religious beliefs. Since you can't discriminate based on religion, their claim would be valid.

    Then businesses see a legal way to not pay for any healthcare, so they all claim to be Christian Scientists. Then nobody has any healthcare.

    And then we all complain on COTH that how could this happen, especially in America?

    ahahaha....yeah....true.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mozart View Post
    Personally, I think the moderate use of shock collars in training humans should be allowed.



  11. #611
    Join Date
    Apr. 1, 2008
    Posts
    4,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frizzle View Post
    I know I've asked this at least twice, but nobody seems to want to answer me. So I will ask once more and then let it go.

    What if HL wins the case, which sets a precedent for employees picking/choosing which healthcare they want to cover based on their religious beliefs.

    Then a Christian Scientist-based company claims they should not have to cover ANY healthcare, as that goes against their religious beliefs. Since you can't discriminate based on religion, their claim would be valid.

    Then businesses see a legal way to not pay for any healthcare, so they all claim to be Christian Scientists. Then nobody has any healthcare.

    And then we all complain on COTH that how could this happen, especially in America?
    Not sure of the question? But I agree, this could happen. If HL wins, the little guys will challenge as well.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  12. #612
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    17,459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frizzle View Post
    I know I've asked this at least twice, but nobody seems to want to answer me. So I will ask once more and then let it go.

    What if HL wins the case, which sets a precedent for employees picking/choosing which healthcare they want to cover based on their religious beliefs.

    Then a Christian Scientist-based company claims they should not have to cover ANY healthcare, as that goes against their religious beliefs. Since you can't discriminate based on religion, their claim would be valid.

    Then businesses see a legal way to not pay for any healthcare, so they all claim to be Christian Scientists. Then nobody has any healthcare.

    And then we all complain on COTH that how could this happen, especially in America?
    "Inconceivable" Princess Bride.

    Then I guess we'll get national health care, which is the best option anyway.
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant


    3 members found this post helpful.

  13. #613
    Join Date
    Dec. 31, 2000
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    12,531

    Default

    I think if he loses, he'll just make all employees part time.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  14. #614
    Join Date
    Sep. 24, 2004
    Location
    Piedmont Triad, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frizzle View Post
    I know I've asked this at least twice, but nobody seems to want to answer me. So I will ask once more and then let it go.

    What if HL wins the case, which sets a precedent for employees picking/choosing which healthcare they want to cover based on their religious beliefs.

    Then a Christian Scientist-based company claims they should not have to cover ANY healthcare, as that goes against their religious beliefs. Since you can't discriminate based on religion, their claim would be valid.

    Then businesses see a legal way to not pay for any healthcare, so they all claim to be Christian Scientists. Then nobody has any healthcare.

    And then we all complain on COTH that how could this happen, especially in America?
    Same thing as salary... two parties agree on terms of the transaction. You pay me such with such benefits. I work for you doing such at these hours. Either party may refuse then or in the future. It's not forced slavery, it's freedom.

    Why is it the assumption here, adults can't manage their life?

    Do women (most of this forum) not negotiate their employment terms?

    answering my own question: Seems so.

    http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133599...women-hesitate



  15. #615
    Join Date
    Sep. 24, 2004
    Location
    Piedmont Triad, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jetsmom View Post
    I think if he loses, he'll just make all employees part time.
    Partimers will not exempt the business. There are clauses that calculate part -time into full time equals.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  16. #616
    Join Date
    Feb. 6, 2007
    Posts
    1,910

    Default

    I don't think he'll sell or liquidate or whatever. He will probably get rid of non-essential full time employees and only hire part timers and have the stores run on skeleton crews. He'll be able to afford the fines that way. That's how were doing it good ol' Wally World. Though Wally World is just pure corporate greed, no blanketing it behind any talk or morals or such



  17. #617
    Join Date
    Oct. 25, 2012
    Posts
    4,128

    Default

    Ten thousand times I've asked this question, and never gotten an intelligent answer:

    Exactly what is the benefit, and to whom, of forcing a woman to become pregnant and/or carry an unwanted child to term against her will? What is the government's interest, let alone a private corporation's, in taking this position?

    I'm all for everyone paying for ALL of their own health needs up to $2,500 or so. If insurance companies weren't expected to pick up the tab for every aspirin, sniffle and, yes, The Pill and Viagra, we'd ALL be able to afford good insurance!

    That said, in the 21st century there is NO justification for discriminating against what other people can and can't do for their health. That is a piece of paternalism right out of feudal times. Your "religious conscience" governs your OWN behavior and choices--not that of your employees!


    2 members found this post helpful.

  18. #618
    Join Date
    Sep. 24, 2004
    Location
    Piedmont Triad, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lady Eboshi View Post
    Ten thousand times I've asked this question, and never gotten an intelligent answer:

    Exactly what is the benefit, and to whom, of forcing a woman to become pregnant and/or carry an unwanted child to term against her will? What is the government's interest, let alone a private corporation's, in taking this position?

    I'm all for everyone paying for ALL of their own health needs up to $2,500 or so. If insurance companies weren't expected to pick up the tab for every aspirin, sniffle and, yes, The Pill and Viagra, we'd ALL be able to afford good insurance!

    That said, in the 21st century there is NO justification for discriminating against what other people can and can't do for their health. That is a piece of paternalism right out of feudal times. Your "religious conscience" governs your OWN behavior and choices--not that of your employees!
    you will not get any answer besides mine because your question isn't genuine... No one (Corp or gov't) is forcing anybody to carry a baby. Well maybe a relative or two ... but that's not corp or gov't. It is all about who pays for the BC, procedure, etc.
    Buy me a pony and I'll support your argument.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  19. #619
    Join Date
    Apr. 28, 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, GA and New Orleans, LA
    Posts
    1,579

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by threedogpack View Post
    Tarheel: can you explain the Commerce Act/individual mandate and how they apply (or does not) to the ACA? I tried reading that but got confused a bit by the legalese.
    OK - that could be a law school exam question, and is not easy to answer fully (particularly since it has been a long time since my Con Law class). Here is my thumb nail answer:

    Primarily, it is important to remember that Congress cannot pass legislation about just anything it chooses. The federal government can only pass laws on an issue if it is one of the issues that the Constitution grants the feds the power to regulate. If the Constitution doesn't provide Congress with the power to regulate something, then the power to regulate that area falls to the individual states.

    This is where you get the main philosophical divide in the judiciary. Strict Constructionists believe that Congress can only regulate what is specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Judicial Activists believe that you can interpret the principles set forth in the Constitution to apply to areas that are not specifically set forth, and that Congress can legislate on those interpretations. For instance, the right to privacy is not specifically set forth in the Constitution anywhere, but it is viewed by SCOTUS as part of the penumbra of rights provided by the Constitution, so Congress can and does pass legislation regarding privacy.

    The Commerce Clause gives Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce. During the civil rights era, the Commerce Clause was read more broadly than it ever had been before to allow Congress to pass laws governing actions or omissions by private parties that had virtually any arguable impact on interstate commerce. The seminal case revolved around a private hotel owner (Heart of Atlanta), right near the interstate, that would not allow African Americans to stay. The Supreme Court held that the hotel's policy impacted interstate commerce, so Congress could pass laws that prohibited to hotel from discriminating in this manner.

    Over the past several decades, Congress has been able to successfully defend almost any constitutional challenge on Commerce Clause grounds.

    So, when Congress wanted to put in the ACA that people without health insurance were going to be forced to buy it, one of their arguments supporting the idea that this was something they could constitutionally require was that healthcare is in effect an interstate industry now, and affects interstate commerce to a degree that Congress has the power to legislate this individual mandate. Most Con Law scholars thought that argument would win.

    However, SCOTUS held that this would be too broad an application of the Commerce Clause, and that the Commerce Clause cannot be read to force someone into the stream of interstate commerce vis a vis having to buy a health insurance policy.

    But, just because the individual mandate cannot be upheld as constitutional under a Commerce Clause theory doesn't mean that there are not other bases in the Constitution for Congress to require the individual mandate. SCOTUS found that the Constitution does grant Congress the power to legislate this requirement under the powers granted to Congress under the Constitution to levy taxes. The fine individuals are forced to pay if they refuse to buy health insurance is viewed as a tax under this theory.

    I hope this makes some sense. As I said, it has been a long time since I took Con Law.
    Riding a horse is not a gentle hobby, to be picked up and laid down like a game of solitaire. It is a grand passion.... ~ Emerson


    1 members found this post helpful.

  20. #620
    Join Date
    Apr. 1, 2008
    Posts
    4,536

    Default

    whew. I had to read through that several times Tarheel. Did I get this right?

    Congress can't view it as interstate (between states) commerce or business but they can view the choice not to comply as a tax? So by extension, the 1.3 mil is a tax for non compliance?


    1 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. Fall flowers 80% off at Hobby Lobby!
    By NaniLio in forum Around The Farm
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Nov. 17, 2012, 12:17 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: Oct. 25, 2011, 02:26 PM
  3. Obamacare And Horseowners
    By Frank B in forum Off Course
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: Sep. 26, 2010, 07:08 PM
  4. Replies: 30
    Last Post: Oct. 7, 2009, 10:05 AM
  5. Spinoff- how do you support your dressage hobby?
    By CatOnLap in forum Dressage
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: Jun. 13, 2008, 11:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness