Rush calls for sex videos.

[granfire]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...eption-advocate-should-post-online-sex-videos

Actually not worth of any more airtime, considering who we are talking about.


However in the wake, some people are defending the matter of conscious that is being violated here...
But then it struck me:
The individual still has the ability to pick and choose according to personal believes. Nobody does force contraceptives on a person.

However, a company/corporation is not a person, past the legal status. Consciousness most often is restricted to the bottom line.
So can a company, a corporation that is not a real person claim concion? (I know, I can't spell it)


so aside from the old windbag blowing superheated vapors, thus earning his keep, and the morality of contraceptives, even if they have a real medical use as well, Can a corporation, a business claim the high ethical standard?

I for one, considering the faceless - or multiheaded - entity an institution like church, or even a business represents think they can't claim it.

This is not meant to discuss BC or the like, we have beaten that dead horse way beyond reason already. Just whether or not you consider a big institution can claim the rights we do assume as individual.

 

[Brian King]

Not sure what you are saying or asking? Can you rephrase the question/statement or can somebody translate?

Regards
Brian King

 

[Josh Oakley]

In regards to whether they can... Yes. And in many cases, institutions and companies have already been granted that right.

As to whether or not they should? No. I think it eroded personal liberty to allow a company to act as an individual.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

 

[granfire]

Not sure what you are saying or asking? Can you rephrase the question/statement or can somebody translate?

Regards
Brian King

Josh got it.

The question is can a conglomerate of people (or non people) as a corporation or institution claim the same personal rights as an individual.

As in this case, can the institution demand that it's moral claim has the same value as the individual one.

To me, while I can see the abstract concept of making such a large organism a legal person, I don't see how it can enjoy the same level of protection.

And sorry for the confusing roundabout way to express myself...running low on caffeine....

 

[Brian King]

Do the individuals working with-in and for a corporation lose their individual rights?

"As in this case, can the institution demand that it's moral claim has the same value as the individual one."

Which case?

Am running off to work and will be limited on computer time over the weekend. Pardon my posting and running and failure to keep up with the thread in both the beginning of it and in the immediate future.

Good luck and have a good weekend
Brian King

 

[Dirty Dog]

A fellow I know on another forum has, as his .sig line, "I'll believe a coproration is a person when Texas executes one"... I think that's an appropriate summation of the issue.

As for Rush calling for sex videos...
We know the man enjoys his pills. Apparently he likes him some porn too.

 

[granfire]

Do the individuals working with-in and for a corporation lose their individual rights?



Which case?

Am running off to work and will be limited on computer time over the weekend. Pardon my posting and running and failure to keep up with the thread in both the beginning of it and in the immediate future.

Good luck and have a good weekend
Brian King

well, 'this case' being how on grounds of believes BC shall be kept exempt from healthcare plans because the church objects to it.
But this is more about the institution's rights to object to it, vs an individual right to conscientious objections.

 

[granfire]

A fellow I know on another forum has, as his .sig line, "I'll believe a coproration is a person when Texas executes one"... I think that's an appropriate summation of the issue.

As for Rush calling for sex videos...
We know the man enjoys his pills. Apparently he likes him some porn too.

I love that tag line! :lol:

 

[shesulsa]

**** Rush Limbaugh. Seriously.

 

[granfire]

**** Rush Limbaugh. Seriously.

what? Make his dreams come true?
Not on your life.

 

[billc]

Hmmm...this woman wants the federal government to force private insurance companies and private businesses to pay for her birth control, and use the police powers of the government to make them cover birth control, and Rush is the problem...hmmm...

 

[shesulsa]

what? Make his dreams come true?
Not on your life.

With an unprotected copy of the Constitution and its Amendments. Too bad we can't do it with the 19th amendment,

 

[Josh Oakley]

Hmmm...this woman wants the federal government to force private insurance companies and private businesses to pay for her birth control, and use the police powers of the government to make them cover birth control, and Rush is the problem...hmmm...

Billc, I would like to point out that the issue at hand is whether firms can and should be treated like individuals in regards to right or not.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

 

[billc]

Since the first line of the thread was this...

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...ine-sex-videos


I was also responding to that...thanks though...

And considering "Rush calls for sex videos." is the name of the thread, once again, I'm not too far off the mark in my response, but thanks again anyway...

 

[ballen0351]

Well people put human emotions and traits on Businesses when it suits their argument. Greedy Oil, Criminal Haliburton, Theving Wallstreet, ect. So why is it ok to give a business the negitave human traits but not the moral ones?

 

[Josh Oakley]

Since the first line of the thread was this...

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...ine-sex-videos


I was also responding to that...thanks though...

And considering "Rush calls for sex videos." is the name of the thread, once again, I'm not too far off the mark in my response, but thanks again anyway...

Read the first post. The whole thing. Gran specifically did NOT want to talk about that narrower issue (hence she said that horse has already been beaten to death), but instead to talk about the larger issue of whether firms should be treated like individuals in regards to rights (hence she said I got the point when I replied).

So you're welcome.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

 

[shesulsa]

A corporation cannot and should not act as an individual and, therefor, should not have the rights of such. Their interests are not in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, they are in profitability and competition.

 

[granfire]

Well people put human emotions and traits on Businesses when it suits their argument. Greedy Oil, Criminal Haliburton, Theving Wallstreet, ect. So why is it ok to give a business the negitave human traits but not the moral ones?

ah, got me there. However, it' not about the traits, it's about the rights.

 

[granfire]

Since the first line of the thread was this...

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...ine-sex-videos


I was also responding to that...thanks though...

And considering "Rush calls for sex videos." is the name of the thread, once again, I'm not too far off the mark in my response, but thanks again anyway...

I knew it would get you to open the thread.
:angel:

 

[ballen0351]

ah, got me there. However, it' not about the traits, it's about the rights.

I dont think its a question of the company having rights as much as does the Govt have the right to force a company to provide a serivce free of charge.