I mean like how that issue of fact was not contested by the government and became a settled fact after the trial.
I see. When you said: “In the specific case of Hobby Lobby, do you have any reason to question the sincerity of the religious beliefs of the underlying natural persons involved?” you didn’t actually mean it. My bad, I just figured someone who is so heavily invested in semantic nitpicking and lauding their knowledge over others wouldn’t substitute “you” for “the court”.
Thai law refers to corporations as “juristic persons.”
If the Times weren’t, legally speaking, considered a person, would you still be able to sue it?
In a sense. If the Times was a sole proprietorship or partnership or some other non-limited-liability entity you could still sue it. The distinction is just that the owners would be directly liable for the judgment while the shareholders of a corporation generally are not.
No, my question asked what it asked. I meant it. You’re just irritated that the question has a legally conclusive answer that you don’t like.
Here, let me help you out. This is what you asked:: “In the specific case of Hobby Lobby, do YOU have any reason to question the sincerity of the religious beliefs of the underlying natural persons involved.” I answered that question by pointing out the owners’ hypocrisy and apparent disregard for their other actions that violate their religious beliefs. So, I answered your question.
Then, because you are you, you didn’t refute those facts, and instead tried to dismiss them by pointing out that the court didn’t consider them, as if that was relevant to your original question.
Hope that clears it up for you.
Not really. To whom do you, Hamlet, believe the “you” that was bolded above was addressed?
RNATB. I like RNATB a lot and respect his opinion, but I do not think he’s the court you now want to have been referring to.
Let’s not be hasty. We don’t know who the nominee is yet.
No, he’s not. And you’re still confused. I asked him that question because I was confident his answer would be fair-minded – as it was. I didn’t ask you that question, and you cannot now piously annoue that you were answering a question I asked you.
That’s your problem? That I answered the question, but because you didn’t ask me directly, it doesn’t matter so you’re free to ignore it? That’s … interesting. Desperate and sad. But interesting.
Justice Bright … I like it.
I’m a liberal who works for a civil defense firm. The ideal judicial candidate for a POTUS who is liberal yet beholden to moneyed interests. And like my predecessor, I will talk enough to make up for Clarence Thomas. My background is as clean as a whistle so long as you don’t spot the drinking game I am credited for on page 3 of the Google results for my name. And I’m (relatively) young and handsome and will add some much needed sex appeal to the least sexy branch of government.
How do you feel about Coca Cola, and more precisely, their cans?
Not POTUS…
In favor, so long as they don’t have pubic hair on them. Though maybe that’s not the reference I was supposed to get?
God, can you imagine mining SDMB posts for confirmation hearing material?
Let’s see: site:boards.straightdope.com “Really Not All That Bright” abortion rape…
“Mr. Bright, you’ve had five warnings. Is there anything you would like to say to the committee in regard to those events?”
“I only deserved four of them, Mr. Chairman.”
I don’t think they’d have to bother with that. I’m pretty up front about my views on abortion, though they may not necessarily inform my votes on specific abortion cases.
That’s my problem with your pious claim to have been answering me.
My question wasn’t directed to you, and had no relevance to any discussion I was having with you.
I wasn’t at all interested in your bigoted views concerning the beliefs of the plaintiffs.