How the Hobby Lobby ruling is helping a member of Warren Jeffs’ polygamous church
SALT LAKE CITY — A federal judge has ruled that a member of the Fundamentalist LDS Church does not have to answer questions about child labor violations because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the Hobby Lobby case.
Vergel Steed refused to answer even the most basic questions in a recent deposition, because he is protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
“It is clear that Mr. Steed has raised the very defenses available under RFRA,” U.S. District Court Judge David Sam wrote in the order.
The U.S. Department of Labor took action against Paragon Contractors for a 2012 incident where hundreds of children were seen working in a field in Hurricane, picking pecans. In court filings, the Labor Department has suggested that FLDS leaders ordered children to be removed from school to work in the fields.
As part of their case, FLDS members have been deposed — including Steed. In a deposition obtained by FOX 13 on Tuesday, it appears Steed refused to answer many questions.
Steed’s attorney objected to the questions, saying he “retains a closely held religious belief that requires him not to speak openly about matters regarding the Church organization with anyone outside of his religious affiliation.”
A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
Moderators: Shirley, Sabo, brian, rass, DaveInSeattle
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
Way to go SCOTUS. Has Ginsberg ever been so right about anything in her life?
And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness. - God
- The Sybian
- The Dude
- Posts: 19068
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:36 am
- Location: Working in the Crap Part of Jersey
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
Shocking. A religion other than Christianity is using newly formed laws meant to benefit only Christianity. Who could have seen this coming? J-Lo, you see the Satanists jumping all over these laws? The latest is some school district that allowed some Christian group to give each kid in a PUBLIC school a New Testament and some book making Christianity more accessible to kids. So the Satanists created a book of puzzles and games to pass out. These guys are brilliant, but they may want to change their name. I looked into their beliefs and I just don't see the connection to Satan. Basically, they believe in all of the good stuff that Jesus supposedly taught (love thy neighbor type stuff) without the deity or any of the bad stuff that comes with all organized religions.
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
-Pruitt
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
Well if you read the bible, Satan is probably the most innocuous character in there. He showed up twice. Once to tell a chick that it was okay to eat an apple because God lied and it wouldn't kill you...the other to hang out with Jesus in the desert for 40 days before he made his triumphant return to Jerusalem...and nothing ever happened. I think they just got high and played video games. Anyway, I don't think Satanists really believe in Satan.The Sybian wrote:
Shocking. A religion other than Christianity is using newly formed laws meant to benefit only Christianity. Who could have seen this coming? J-Lo, you see the Satanists jumping all over these laws? The latest is some school district that allowed some Christian group to give each kid in a PUBLIC school a New Testament and some book making Christianity more accessible to kids. So the Satanists created a book of puzzles and games to pass out. These guys are brilliant, but they may want to change their name. I looked into their beliefs and I just don't see the connection to Satan. Basically, they believe in all of the good stuff that Jesus supposedly taught (love thy neighbor type stuff) without the deity or any of the bad stuff that comes with all organized religions.
Yeah, that coloring book is hilarious though.
And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness. - God
- The Sybian
- The Dude
- Posts: 19068
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:36 am
- Location: Working in the Crap Part of Jersey
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
Wherever I saw the article about that coloring book, a commenter had the best comeback to a religion nut railing on Statanists for worshiping Satan, which they don't. The guy responded by asking how many people Satan killed in Bible versus how many people God killed in the Bible. Now who is the evil one?
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
-Pruitt
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
And of course Jesus was high...he rode into Jerusalem on a fucking donkey! You're the creator all time, space, and matter and you're taking names on a donkey!
And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness. - God
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
How tight is that dress? So much pancaking.
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
No. They're just atheists with bad (or awesome!) branding.Jerloma wrote: Anyway, I don't think Satanists really believe in Satan.
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
Apparently, there's some infighting in that community because the true Satanists are mad that these other Satanists are getting all this pub on these 1st amendment issues when they should be worshiping Satan.P.D.X. wrote:No. They're just atheists with bad (or awesome!) branding.Jerloma wrote: Anyway, I don't think Satanists really believe in Satan.
http://www.freep.com/article/20140915/N ... aning-ways" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
“You have to understand, though, that the Satanic Temple is really underplaying the Satan angle and focusing on the atheist and free speech/religion issues in general, which has garnered a lot of support,” [professor and Satanism expert Jesper Aagaard Petersen] said.
The Temples of Satan, however, worships Satan: They exchange blood in marriage rituals, practice magic and even sacrifice goats, [Rev. Tom Erik] Raspotnik said, adding that he’s taken part and eaten the goat afterward.
“I’ve also just killed a goat and buried it,” he said. “I just don’t think it’s that phenomenal to eat.”
…
Even the Church of Satan, claiming thousands of members worldwide, is quick to distance itself from the Satanic Temple, despite agreement on atheism, individualism and affinity for pentagrams.
…
He also said the Church of Satan only applies the term “Satanist” to itself; the others are called “devil worshipers or demonolators, not Satanists,” [High Priest Magus Peter Gilmore of the Church of Satan] said in the e-mail.
And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness. - God
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
Hey the liberals won a SCOTUS ruling today! Take one guess whose vote they got?
Also...they got it wrong.
Also...they got it wrong.
And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness. - God
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
Bandwagon fan of the 2023 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
In what way?Jerloma wrote:
Also...they got it wrong.
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
In Jerloma's defense that reference was to a SCOTUS ruling last year. I posted in this one as a de facto SCOTUS thread. (His post is from a year ago.)Moreta wrote:In what way?Jerloma wrote:
Also...they got it wrong.
Bandwagon fan of the 2023 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
Doh. I'm usually more attentive than that! I withdraw the question. (Thanks brian)
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
I'm going to answer it anyway. If Texas allows for personalized messages on license plates, they don't get to censor people's messages just because they find it offensive. That the SCOTUS can have such contempt for the 1st amendment is scary. Speech that some people might find offensive still needs to be protected and if we're going to start restricting it based on what he government deems offensive; that's a damn slippery slope.
And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness. - God
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
This is a bit of an oversimplification of the First Amendment issues. If we were talking about personalized messages someone wrote on a sign on their lawn, I'd agree with you 100%. But a license plate is, in a sense, a government document. The government has always been given more control over forums it establishes than forums that are truly public. It's well established that you can't get in trouble for wearing a shirt that says "Fuck" on it (the famous "Fuck the Draft" t-shirt case from the 1960s). But isn't there a difference between that and allowing someone to get a personalized license plate that says "FUCK OFF" on it?Jerloma wrote:I'm going to answer it anyway. If Texas allows for personalized messages on license plates, they don't get to censor people's messages just because they find it offensive. That the SCOTUS can have such contempt for the 1st amendment is scary. Speech that some people might find offensive still needs to be protected and if we're going to start restricting it based on what he government deems offensive; that's a damn slippery slope.
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
I'm certain they have provisions on this policy that don't allow for the use of foul language. If you're going to allow personalized messages on a government document, the government certainly has the right to put boundaries around it. What they don't get to do is allow certain people to reflect their culture or heritage or whatever bullshit that these rednecks are excusing themselves for waving that flag around but not other people. Now, it's discrimination.
I find Xtianity to be a morally reprehensible ideology, but can you imagine them not allowing "John 3:16" on a license plate because I have an issue with it?
I find Xtianity to be a morally reprehensible ideology, but can you imagine them not allowing "John 3:16" on a license plate because I have an issue with it?
And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness. - God
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
Doesn't that also violate the First Amendment though?Jerloma wrote:I find Xtianity to be a morally reprehensible ideology, but can you imagine them not allowing "John 3:16" on a license plate because I have an issue with it?
Bandwagon fan of the 2023 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
Yeah, I assume a person could have his plate letters read John 316, but there's no way a state could display a religious symbol on their plates in a manner like that Confederate flag decal. And if we agree that a state can place certain limits on messaging on its plates, I'd say it's reasonable not to allow symbols that honor a treasonous organization that caused the deadliest war in American history.brian wrote:Doesn't that also violate the First Amendment though?Jerloma wrote:I find Xtianity to be a morally reprehensible ideology, but can you imagine them not allowing "John 3:16" on a license plate because I have an issue with it?
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
No, you can use government property to promote your religion as long as the government is not limiting it to specific religions. It's like having to allow a Festivus pole next to the Nativity scene on the lawn of the Town Hall.brian wrote:Doesn't that also violate the First Amendment though?Jerloma wrote:I find Xtianity to be a morally reprehensible ideology, but can you imagine them not allowing "John 3:16" on a license plate because I have an issue with it?
And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness. - God
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
You mean like one of these?
https://edmv.ncdot.gov/VehicleRegistrat ... D=62#term=
Or maybe this one?
https://mvd.dor.ga.gov/motor/plates/Pla ... x?pcode=CB
More:
http://www.dor.ms.gov/TagsTitles/Licens ... odbles.jpg
I guess those are all not exactly religious or pro-confederacy, wink wink.
https://edmv.ncdot.gov/VehicleRegistrat ... D=62#term=
Or maybe this one?
https://mvd.dor.ga.gov/motor/plates/Pla ... x?pcode=CB
More:
http://www.dor.ms.gov/TagsTitles/Licens ... odbles.jpg
I guess those are all not exactly religious or pro-confederacy, wink wink.
Totally Kafkaesque
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
I'm more offended Texas lets you get OU personalized plates.
well this is gonna be someone's new signature - bronto
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
It seems weird that made it through the Texas legislature.Giff wrote:I'm more offended Texas lets you get OU personalized plates.
Bandwagon fan of the 2023 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
How come it's still allowed in other states anyway? Doesn't the SCOTUS ruling make it a federal mandate?Shirley wrote:You mean like one of these?
https://edmv.ncdot.gov/VehicleRegistrat ... D=62#term=
Or maybe this one?
https://mvd.dor.ga.gov/motor/plates/Pla ... x?pcode=CB
More:
http://www.dor.ms.gov/TagsTitles/Licens ... odbles.jpg
I guess those are all not exactly religious or pro-confederacy, wink wink.
And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness. - God
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
I'm not familiar with the opinion, but I'd guess the issue was whether Texas was allowed to eliminate the Confederate plates rather than required to eliminate them. That would explain why other states still offer them. The Mississippi plate is interesting. My guess is that "God Bless America" is such a common phrase that it's viewed as non-denominational. Obviously that's highly debatable, at best, but I could see a court allowing that but not a cross or Star of David.Jerloma wrote:How come it's still allowed in other states anyway? Doesn't the SCOTUS ruling make it a federal mandate?Shirley wrote:You mean like one of these?
https://edmv.ncdot.gov/VehicleRegistrat ... D=62#term=
Or maybe this one?
https://mvd.dor.ga.gov/motor/plates/Pla ... x?pcode=CB
More:
http://www.dor.ms.gov/TagsTitles/Licens ... odbles.jpg
I guess those are all not exactly religious or pro-confederacy, wink wink.
- The Sybian
- The Dude
- Posts: 19068
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:36 am
- Location: Working in the Crap Part of Jersey
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
Someone still has to challenge it in court. Just because the Supreme Court finds something Unconstitutional, it often doesn't change in other jurisdictions until someone challenges it in court, citing the Supreme Court's decision.Jerloma wrote:How come it's still allowed in other states anyway? Doesn't the SCOTUS ruling make it a federal mandate?Shirley wrote:You mean like one of these?
https://edmv.ncdot.gov/VehicleRegistrat ... D=62#term=
Or maybe this one?
https://mvd.dor.ga.gov/motor/plates/Pla ... x?pcode=CB
More:
http://www.dor.ms.gov/TagsTitles/Licens ... odbles.jpg
I guess those are all not exactly religious or pro-confederacy, wink wink.
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
-Pruitt
- Steve of phpBB
- The Dude
- Posts: 8634
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:44 am
- Location: Feeling gravity's pull
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
Supreme Court rules that searches of cell phone location information require a warrant.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... berts.html
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/201 ... berts.html
And his one problem is he didn’t go to Russia that night because he had extracurricular activities, and they froze to death.
- A_B
- The Dude
- Posts: 23553
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:36 am
- Location: Getting them boards like a wolf in the chicken pen.
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
SHOCKED that this thread hasn't been bumped since Summer '16.
Hold on, I'm trying to see if Jack London ever gets this fire built or not.
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
Dude, I marvel that in two years you've gone from arguably the most conservative Swamper to almost tweeting #resist in some of your tweets. Not making fun at all. That's just an A+ reply to Steve's post.
Bandwagon fan of the 2023 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
While I think the decision does good in the long run, I don't think it actually follows precedent.
LEGALESE: I thought they would look at a person's location similarly the way they look at Belton, that a person's physical location is something that is held out to the world. If not that, then similarly to bank statements, which are data held by a third party. IIRC, at least on a federal level, warrants would not be necessary in either case (although STRONGLY encouraged for completeness), as there isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy in information that is either held out to the world, or held by a third party.
ENGLISH: So as a primer in case you didn't really listen to 99 Problems, the 4th Amendment requires the police or other parties who either are the government, or acting on their direct behalf (like Batman) to have a warrant backed up by probable cause before they go through your "...person, places, papers, or things" The police, for example, can't just bust down the door and ransack your house looking through your shit unless they could go in front of a judge and provide credible evidence that doing so would lead to evidence of criminal activity, and that judge agrees and issues you a detailed warrant allowing them to do that.
Over the years, however, a bunch of exceptions and clarifications were made. One of the clarifications is that a warrant is only necessary if it's something that a person would have a "Reasonable Expectation of Privacy" in keeping secret. You keep your planner/journal in your home, for example, and obviously, you expect that to be private. The police can't simply walk in and take it, and then turn around and use that against you at a trial. The Supreme Court, however, carved out a bunch of things situations that a person can't actually expect to be private. One example is cars, which is the brunt of Belton I cited above. The Court reasoned that a car is open and notorious to the point that when you are outside driving it, it would be absurd to think that this is some private space when anyone on the road can see you. Because of that, if a car is stopped for a moving violation, which could be something as minor as driving 56, a broken taillight, or simply not wearing your seatbelt, the police could search and seize the vehicle without a further warrant. Later decisions expanded that to any person in the vehicle being searchable (a person arrested for a crime can be searched immediately without a warrant), searching or seizing anything in the cabin of the vehicle, and searching/seizing anything in an unlocked container that's part of the car like the glove box or sunglasses compartment.
My reasoning would be your physical location that stored on your phone couldn't possibly be considered something you would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, similarly as driving on the road.
A second area of information where the Court held that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy is information held by a third party. Credit card statements, bank statements, employee records, and utility bills do not require warrants to procure if going to the third party. (It's still a good idea to do so). The argument here is that since there are third parties that already have that information, there's no way you could think that the information is private. (I can't recall the cases off the top of my head).
My reasoning here is that your physical location is a piece of information held by a third party. Your wireless provider has that information at its disposal so it can use the correct cell tower to bounce your calls/data to you. Any app that gives push notifications based on location, such as news or Waze or Google Maps, they know exactly where you are too. Since they are third parties, they know where you are. A warrant in this case might not be necessary.
Like I said, this is a good result in terms of protecting rights. I'm not sure, however if the case law is correct. Interesting that CJ Roberts was the swing vote here.
LEGALESE: I thought they would look at a person's location similarly the way they look at Belton, that a person's physical location is something that is held out to the world. If not that, then similarly to bank statements, which are data held by a third party. IIRC, at least on a federal level, warrants would not be necessary in either case (although STRONGLY encouraged for completeness), as there isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy in information that is either held out to the world, or held by a third party.
ENGLISH: So as a primer in case you didn't really listen to 99 Problems, the 4th Amendment requires the police or other parties who either are the government, or acting on their direct behalf (like Batman) to have a warrant backed up by probable cause before they go through your "...person, places, papers, or things" The police, for example, can't just bust down the door and ransack your house looking through your shit unless they could go in front of a judge and provide credible evidence that doing so would lead to evidence of criminal activity, and that judge agrees and issues you a detailed warrant allowing them to do that.
Over the years, however, a bunch of exceptions and clarifications were made. One of the clarifications is that a warrant is only necessary if it's something that a person would have a "Reasonable Expectation of Privacy" in keeping secret. You keep your planner/journal in your home, for example, and obviously, you expect that to be private. The police can't simply walk in and take it, and then turn around and use that against you at a trial. The Supreme Court, however, carved out a bunch of things situations that a person can't actually expect to be private. One example is cars, which is the brunt of Belton I cited above. The Court reasoned that a car is open and notorious to the point that when you are outside driving it, it would be absurd to think that this is some private space when anyone on the road can see you. Because of that, if a car is stopped for a moving violation, which could be something as minor as driving 56, a broken taillight, or simply not wearing your seatbelt, the police could search and seize the vehicle without a further warrant. Later decisions expanded that to any person in the vehicle being searchable (a person arrested for a crime can be searched immediately without a warrant), searching or seizing anything in the cabin of the vehicle, and searching/seizing anything in an unlocked container that's part of the car like the glove box or sunglasses compartment.
My reasoning would be your physical location that stored on your phone couldn't possibly be considered something you would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, similarly as driving on the road.
A second area of information where the Court held that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy is information held by a third party. Credit card statements, bank statements, employee records, and utility bills do not require warrants to procure if going to the third party. (It's still a good idea to do so). The argument here is that since there are third parties that already have that information, there's no way you could think that the information is private. (I can't recall the cases off the top of my head).
My reasoning here is that your physical location is a piece of information held by a third party. Your wireless provider has that information at its disposal so it can use the correct cell tower to bounce your calls/data to you. Any app that gives push notifications based on location, such as news or Waze or Google Maps, they know exactly where you are too. Since they are third parties, they know where you are. A warrant in this case might not be necessary.
Like I said, this is a good result in terms of protecting rights. I'm not sure, however if the case law is correct. Interesting that CJ Roberts was the swing vote here.
My avatar corresponds on my place in the Swamp posting list with the all-time Home Run list. Number 45 is Paul Konerko with 439.
- Steve of phpBB
- The Dude
- Posts: 8634
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:44 am
- Location: Feeling gravity's pull
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
This is a great analysis. Thanks.L-Jam3 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 22, 2018 1:13 pm While I think the decision does good in the long run, I don't think it actually follows precedent.
LEGALESE: I thought they would look at a person's location similarly the way they look at Belton, that a person's physical location is something that is held out to the world. If not that, then similarly to bank statements, which are data held by a third party. IIRC, at least on a federal level, warrants would not be necessary in either case (although STRONGLY encouraged for completeness), as there isn't a reasonable expectation of privacy in information that is either held out to the world, or held by a third party.
ENGLISH: So as a primer in case you didn't really listen to 99 Problems, the 4th Amendment requires the police or other parties who either are the government, or acting on their direct behalf (like Batman) to have a warrant backed up by probable cause before they go through your "...person, places, papers, or things" The police, for example, can't just bust down the door and ransack your house looking through your shit unless they could go in front of a judge and provide credible evidence that doing so would lead to evidence of criminal activity, and that judge agrees and issues you a detailed warrant allowing them to do that.
Over the years, however, a bunch of exceptions and clarifications were made. One of the clarifications is that a warrant is only necessary if it's something that a person would have a "Reasonable Expectation of Privacy" in keeping secret. You keep your planner/journal in your home, for example, and obviously, you expect that to be private. The police can't simply walk in and take it, and then turn around and use that against you at a trial. The Supreme Court, however, carved out a bunch of things situations that a person can't actually expect to be private. One example is cars, which is the brunt of Belton I cited above. The Court reasoned that a car is open and notorious to the point that when you are outside driving it, it would be absurd to think that this is some private space when anyone on the road can see you. Because of that, if a car is stopped for a moving violation, which could be something as minor as driving 56, a broken taillight, or simply not wearing your seatbelt, the police could search and seize the vehicle without a further warrant. Later decisions expanded that to any person in the vehicle being searchable (a person arrested for a crime can be searched immediately without a warrant), searching or seizing anything in the cabin of the vehicle, and searching/seizing anything in an unlocked container that's part of the car like the glove box or sunglasses compartment.
My reasoning would be your physical location that stored on your phone couldn't possibly be considered something you would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, similarly as driving on the road.
A second area of information where the Court held that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy is information held by a third party. Credit card statements, bank statements, employee records, and utility bills do not require warrants to procure if going to the third party. (It's still a good idea to do so). The argument here is that since there are third parties that already have that information, there's no way you could think that the information is private. (I can't recall the cases off the top of my head).
My reasoning here is that your physical location is a piece of information held by a third party. Your wireless provider has that information at its disposal so it can use the correct cell tower to bounce your calls/data to you. Any app that gives push notifications based on location, such as news or Waze or Google Maps, they know exactly where you are too. Since they are third parties, they know where you are. A warrant in this case might not be necessary.
Like I said, this is a good result in terms of protecting rights. I'm not sure, however if the case law is correct. Interesting that CJ Roberts was the swing vote here.
I think the case law had to (and still has to) evolve, given how much technology has changed. Following someone down the street isn't a search because you are in public view while going down the street. But back when tailing someone meant having a police officer physically follow them, it wasn't going to happen routinely. And the results of the tracking would just be paper notes in a file drawer somewhere. Now, of course, cell phones allow automatic tracking of everyone, and computer capability makes it feasible to track literally everyone, and to put all that information into a database and keep a permanent, easily accessible record of everywhere someone went and everyone someone ran into.
The idea of a police office tailing a suspect for a short time in public areas is not all that frightening. But the idea of a permanent government database with a record of every person's movements is.
And his one problem is he didn’t go to Russia that night because he had extracurricular activities, and they froze to death.
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
....and states can now collect sales tax on online purchases whether the online business has a physical location or not in the state.
Dammit. 5-4 decision too. Ugh.
Dammit. 5-4 decision too. Ugh.
mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
I dunno. I don't have much of a beef with that one. Setting aside the legal aspects of the case, which I know absolutely nothing about, it seems fair that states should be able to collect sales taxes for purchases made by residents of their state. The tech aspects of it seem tricky, but Amazon manages it without issue, so...Johnnie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 22, 2018 3:01 pm ....and states can now collect sales tax on online purchases whether the online business has a physical location or not in the state.
Dammit. 5-4 decision too. Ugh.
Bandwagon fan of the 2023 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!
- Steve of phpBB
- The Dude
- Posts: 8634
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:44 am
- Location: Feeling gravity's pull
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
To me, this decision is a no-brainer.brian wrote: ↑Fri Jun 22, 2018 3:12 pmI dunno. I don't have much of a beef with that one. Setting aside the legal aspects of the case, which I know absolutely nothing about, it seems fair that states should be able to collect sales taxes for purchases made by residents of their state. The tech aspects of it seem tricky, but Amazon manages it without issue, so...Johnnie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 22, 2018 3:01 pm ....and states can now collect sales tax on online purchases whether the online business has a physical location or not in the state.
Dammit. 5-4 decision too. Ugh.
Most states already charge a "use tax" for items you buy out of state but keep and use in your home state, that is the same percentage as the sales tax. But no one ever pays it, and the state has no practical and non-draconian way to enforce it. So it doesn't really require people to pay any tax they weren't legally obligated to pay anyway.
And his one problem is he didn’t go to Russia that night because he had extracurricular activities, and they froze to death.
- A_B
- The Dude
- Posts: 23553
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:36 am
- Location: Getting them boards like a wolf in the chicken pen.
Re: A Good Day For The Bill of Rights
I seen some shit man.
Hold on, I'm trying to see if Jack London ever gets this fire built or not.