What should I do?

webmost

So, one of my little side-businesses, I have an LLC -- Limited Liability Corporation. Well, last Sunday, unbeknownst to me, my LLC went to church, found Jesus, got baptized, and developed a strict moral conscience. Now my LLC is nagging on me not to smoke cigars.

What shall I do?

smoke_em_if_you_got_em

webmost:

So, one of my little side-businesses, I have an LLC -- Limited Liability Corporation. Well, last Sunday, unbeknownst to me, my LLC went to church, found Jesus, got baptized, and developed a strict moral conscience. Now my LLC is nagging on me not to smoke cigars.

What shall I do?

Not sure if I can make the connection. I've been saved, baptized and attend church every Sunday..unless on vacation or something like that...but what does the cigars have to do with church. Now if it was regards to drinking..well that can be debated back and forth all day long. But the smoking? Do they feel you are doing harm to the body that was created for you?

webmost

smoke em if you got em:

webmost:

So, one of my little side-businesses, I have an LLC -- Limited Liability Corporation. Well, last Sunday, unbeknownst to me, my LLC went to church, found Jesus, got baptized, and developed a strict moral conscience. Now my LLC is nagging on me not to smoke cigars.

What shall I do?

Not sure if I can make the connection. I've been saved, baptized and attend church every Sunday..unless on vacation or something like that...but what does the cigars have to do with church. Now if it was regards to drinking..well that can be debated back and forth all day long. But the smoking? Do they feel you are doing harm to the body that was created for you?

Just a snide reference to the Supremes' decision yesterday. Not to be taken literally. My LLC does not actually attend church, and if you were to baptize the thing, the paper it's printed on would likely dissolve.

smoke_em_if_you_got_em

webmost:

smoke em if you got em:

webmost:

So, one of my little side-businesses, I have an LLC -- Limited Liability Corporation. Well, last Sunday, unbeknownst to me, my LLC went to church, found Jesus, got baptized, and developed a strict moral conscience. Now my LLC is nagging on me not to smoke cigars.

What shall I do?

Not sure if I can make the connection. I've been saved, baptized and attend church every Sunday..unless on vacation or something like that...but what does the cigars have to do with church. Now if it was regards to drinking..well that can be debated back and forth all day long. But the smoking? Do they feel you are doing harm to the body that was created for you?

Just a snide reference to the Supremes' decision yesterday. Not to be taken literally. My LLC does not actually attend church, and if you were to baptize the thing, the paper it's printed on would likely dissolve.

Well I feel pretty stupid..my bad brother. looks like I jumped out of the plane without a parachute. Thought maybe you had partnered up with someone...carry on.

wwhwang

No passage in the Bible says anything about smoking, so I'm not quite sure why this LLC guy is nagging at you to quit. I say do what you will.

EDIT: Sorry. Got a call in the middle of posting this. Didn't see the other posts. Disregard.

Bob_Luken

LOL

raisindot

webmost:

Just a snide reference to the Supremes' decision yesterday. Not to be taken literally. My LLC does not actually attend church, and if you were to baptize the thing, the paper it's printed on would likely dissolve.

Oh! I didn't get that either. But I'm glad you brought it up, since I didn't want to be the first.

Honestly, unlike many of my fellow tree-huggers, I'm not all that worked up by the Holly Lobby decision. Maybe because the decision was only focused on contraceptives. If your family owned employer is no longer obligated to pay for 'em, go to the drugstore and buy yourself some Trojans or morning after pills and deduct them as out of pocket healthcare expenses. The Supremes also provided a loophole for you and me taxpayers to pay for Holly's employees' birth control pills, whether we want to or not.

I'd be a lot more alarmed if the Supremes allowed the Hollies to deny healthcare coverage to gay couples, or if a family company owned by Christian Scientists refused to provide healthcare coverage because they don't believe in medicine. Or it the Hollies could opt-out of providing other kinds of heathcare coverage--for example, refusing to pay for hospital-based circumcisions of babies because they were a Jewish/Muslim thing. Or refusing to pay for alcohol treatment treatment programs because drinking is a sin.

But it doesn't appear in the decision that the Supremes broadened the definition of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act to go beyond contraceptives. Doesn't mean they won't the next time.

Bob_Luken

raisindot:

webmost:

Just a snide reference to the Supremes' decision yesterday. Not to be taken literally. My LLC does not actually attend church, and if you were to baptize the thing, the paper it's printed on would likely dissolve.

Oh! I didn't get that either. But I'm glad you brought it up, since I didn't want to be the first.

Honestly, unlike many of my fellow tree-huggers, I'm not all that worked up by the Holly Lobby decision. Maybe because the decision was only focused on contraceptives. If your family owned employer is no longer obligated to pay for 'em, go to the drugstore and buy yourself some Trojans or morning after pills and deduct them as out of pocket healthcare expenses. The Supremes also provided a loophole for you and me taxpayers to pay for Holly's employees' birth control pills, whether we want to or not.

I'd be a lot more alarmed if the Supremes allowed the Hollies to deny healthcare coverage to gay couples, or if a family company owned by Christian Scientists refused to provide healthcare coverage because they don't believe in medicine. Or it the Hollies could opt-out of providing other kinds of heathcare coverage--for example, refusing to pay for hospital-based circumcisions of babies because they were a Jewish/Muslim thing. Or refusing to pay for alcohol treatment treatment programs because drinking is a sin.

But it doesn't appear in the decision that the Supremes broadened the definition of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act to go beyond contraceptives. Doesn't mean they won't the next time.

OK. So it's not such a big deal to you but can you tell me what's up with the repeated claims that all types of contraceptives are affected? The Hobby Lobby case focused on just four specific types of contraceptives. The court's decision in the case does not allow Hobby Lobby to opt out of providing the birth control methods that are most commonly used.

raisindot

Bob Luken:

raisindot:

Honestly, unlike many of my fellow tree-huggers, I'm not all that worked up by the Holly Lobby decision. Maybe because the decision was only focused on contraceptives. If your family owned employer is no longer obligated to pay for 'em, go to the drugstore and buy yourself some Trojans or morning after pills and deduct them as out of pocket healthcare expenses. The Supremes also provided a loophole for you and me taxpayers to pay for Holly's employees' birth control pills, whether we want to or not.

I'd be a lot more alarmed if the Supremes allowed the Hollies to deny healthcare coverage to gay couples, or if a family company owned by Christian Scientists refused to provide healthcare coverage because they don't believe in medicine. Or it the Hollies could opt-out of providing other kinds of heathcare coverage--for example, refusing to pay for hospital-based circumcisions of babies because they were a Jewish/Muslim thing. Or refusing to pay for alcohol treatment treatment programs because drinking is a sin.

But it doesn't appear in the decision that the Supremes broadened the definition of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act to go beyond contraceptives. Doesn't mean they won't the next time.

OK. So it's not such a big deal to you but can you tell me what's up with the repeated claims that all types of contraceptives are affected? The Hobby Lobby case focused on just four specific types of contraceptives. The court's decision in the case does not allow Hobby Lobby to opt out of providing the birth control methods that are most commonly used.

You're right. Holly Lobby was only objecting to four kinds of abortificants, not all kinds of contraceptives. The case just opens the door to future cases where companies may not want to cover vaccinations or cancer treatment on religious grounds. I can only hope that the Court won't extend the precedent of Holly Lobby to treatments that save lives. We shall see.

Rain

I can't wait until my job has to pay for my house, car and find me a spouse. This ties in to the "me me me" attitude we have today. If you're to effing broke to buy a condom or some dental dams....then go to school, find a better job or move to Belgium. Well, or PM me...my Aid Station has condoms for free.

Bob_Luken

raisindot:

Bob Luken:

raisindot:

Honestly, unlike many of my fellow tree-huggers, I'm not all that worked up by the Holly Lobby decision. Maybe because the decision was only focused on contraceptives. If your family owned employer is no longer obligated to pay for 'em, go to the drugstore and buy yourself some Trojans or morning after pills and deduct them as out of pocket healthcare expenses. The Supremes also provided a loophole for you and me taxpayers to pay for Holly's employees' birth control pills, whether we want to or not.

I'd be a lot more alarmed if the Supremes allowed the Hollies to deny healthcare coverage to gay couples, or if a family company owned by Christian Scientists refused to provide healthcare coverage because they don't believe in medicine. Or it the Hollies could opt-out of providing other kinds of heathcare coverage--for example, refusing to pay for hospital-based circumcisions of babies because they were a Jewish/Muslim thing. Or refusing to pay for alcohol treatment treatment programs because drinking is a sin.

But it doesn't appear in the decision that the Supremes broadened the definition of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act to go beyond contraceptives. Doesn't mean they won't the next time.

OK. So it's not such a big deal to you but can you tell me what's up with the repeated claims that all types of contraceptives are affected? The Hobby Lobby case focused on just four specific types of contraceptives. The court's decision in the case does not allow Hobby Lobby to opt out of providing the birth control methods that are most commonly used.

You're right. Holly Lobby was only objecting to four kinds of abortificants, not all kinds of contraceptives. The case just opens the door to future cases where companies may not want to cover vaccinations or cancer treatment on religious grounds. I can only hope that the Court won't extend the precedent of Holly Lobby to treatments that save lives. We shall see.

I see your point. And the same type of argument can be made in the opposite direction had the case gone the other way. "If the government can force use to pay for stuff that goes against our religious beliefs on this issue, what next?"

But what I really wanted to know is what you think of the folks on the left who are protesting the decision with an ridiculous amount of spin by saying or implying that ALL forms of birth control were affected? Hillary Clinton actually said that Hobby Lobby owners don't think that their employees should be using contraception. You think she doesn't know what she's talking about or is it pure spin?

webmost

You guys are all missing the point. In what sense is an virtual entity artificially created for the specific purpose of avoiding personal liability imbued with the rights of a person?

It's nuts.

Bob_Luken

webmost:

You guys are all missing the point. In what sense is an virtual entity artificially created for the specific purpose of avoiding personal liability imbued with the rights of a person?

It's nuts.

I see your point. But, as you must know by now, this forum seldom stays on track.

It's nuts.

webmost

How is it that a corporation is a person while an unborn infant is not?

raisindot

webmost:

How is it that a corporation is a person while an unborn infant is not?

And away we go...I'll just sit out with the popcorn for this fireworks display.

J.S.

webmost:

So, one of my little side-businesses, I have an LLC -- Limited Liability Corporation. Well, last Sunday, unbeknownst to me, my LLC went to church, found Jesus, got baptized, and developed a strict moral conscience. Now my LLC is nagging on me not to smoke cigars.

What shall I do?

A lot of co. are doing this. I worked for one that if you admitted you smoked they would not hire you. If they saw you smoking on a break they found a reason to fire you. They claimed it was about insurance and keeping cost down but it was nuts.

What is the LLC's issue? Is it insurance cost, image, etc.?

I would just not smoke around those associated with it or while on the job. What you do in the privacy of your own home is nobody's business as long as it is not illegal.

Bob_Luken

Aaaaand,.............. we're back to your dreadful smoking dilemma . LOL

webmost

Hilarious.