Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Decision

Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Decision

Posted in the Jackson-Heights Forum

First Prev
of 6
Next Last
Opinion

Hot Springs, SD

#1 Jun 30, 2014
Corporations and corporate ownership are quite different than individual ownership. One is that legally the corporations separates liability away from the individual. So there is a separation between the individual and the company. The whole point of establishing a corporation is to create an entity separate from oneself to limit legal liability.

Thus the Supreme Court is giving special protections/liability limits that only a corporation can get on the one hand, and special protections that only individuals, churches and religious organizations get, on the other. It seems awfully dangerous to allow corporations to have it both ways.

That would seem to open the door for similar decisions based on the same premise:
For Muslims owned companies to require female workers to cover their heads.
For Religious groups who do not believe in blood transfusions, transplants or no medical based on it’s all in God’s hands.

I wonder if the Supreme Court would have ruled the same way if the group bringing the legal action had been Muslim.

Then there is another point that should be made.

If a company was started by a group that all had the same beliefs and wrote it into the articles of incorporation that to purchase stock & become an owner in this company you have to first agree to our religious held corporate restrictions. By purchasing stock in this company xyz you thus so agree & accept such at the time of said purchase of stock.

Thus secular religious beliefs and “closely held” ownership agreement rules in the company could be restricted to either people of the same religion or someone being forced to agree with their beliefs. Thus, even if you purchased stock in the open market you could not disagree with their pre-imposed ownership requirements and they could long term impose their beliefs.
nac

Bellmore, NY

#3 Jun 30, 2014
Opinion wrote:
Corporations and corporate ownership are quite different than individual ownership. One is that legally the corporations separates liability away from the individual. So there is a separation between the individual and the company. The whole point of establishing a corporation is to create an entity separate from oneself to limit legal liability.
Thus the Supreme Court is giving special protections/liability limits that only a corporation can get on the one hand, and special protections that only individuals, churches and religious organizations get, on the other. It seems awfully dangerous to allow corporations to have it both ways.
You do have something of a point here. But not completely. When these hobby store religious people incorporated their business, there was no law that they had to provide contraceptives for their employees against their religious beliefs.

No, the law came after they had been in business, creating jobs, and contributing to the tax base for decades. Then the government came in and mandated that they do something that violates their religious beliefs.

I personally don't agree with their (or anyone else's) religious beliefs, but that isn't the issue. I also don't like the idea of the government mandating that a corporation's founders violate their religious beliefs over something so trivial. If they don't want to provide contraceptives for their employees, they shouldn't have to. If you think that your employer is responsible for your birth control... work somewhere else. After all, those of you that are mad about this are the same people that insist Obama's economy is booming. Why not just work somewhere else?
Opinion wrote:
That would seem to open the door for similar decisions based on the same premise:
For Muslims owned companies to require female workers to cover their heads.
For Religious groups who do not believe in blood transfusions, transplants or no medical based on it’s all in God’s hands.
It is nothing like that at all. In the case in question, the government decided it needed to mandate that a "christian" company to go against their beliefs and provide birth control to their employees. In your example, the muslim company is the one mandating the head cover.

No doors are being opened, you're trying to deceive with the use of scare tactics.
Opinion wrote:
I wonder if the Supreme Court would have ruled the same way if the group bringing the legal action had been Muslim.
Another attempt to use deception to demonize the ruling against big government. Do you wish to call any of the SCJ's anti-muslim or radical-christian? If not, your statement is without merit.
Opinion wrote:
Then there is another point that should be made.
If a company was started by a group that all had the same beliefs and wrote it into the articles of incorporation that to purchase stock & become an owner in this company you have to first agree to our religious held corporate restrictions. By purchasing stock in this company xyz you thus so agree & accept such at the time of said purchase of stock.
Thus secular religious beliefs and “closely held” ownership agreement rules in the company could be restricted to either people of the same religion or someone being forced to agree with their beliefs. Thus, even if you purchased stock in the open market you could not disagree with their pre-imposed ownership requirements and they could long term impose their beliefs.
This is nonsense. The government imposed a new law forcing the employer to do something. It has nothing to do with corporations forcing anything on anyone.

Again, if you don't like their religious beliefs, you are free to not work/shop there, just as they are free to believe in silly religious stories.
Opinion

Hot Springs, SD

#4 Jul 1, 2014
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
You do have something of a point here. But not completely..
You have some good point and are well taken.

Yet I have some strong reservations as to where this could lead. Although the decision is worded in a manner attempting to limit it, that may be had to do if law is based on a constitutional legal premise that flows like water.I find it hard to see where a something can only be unconstitutional in one selected set of circumstances. Yet other very closely related issues will be constitutional. Some religious denominations do not believe in blood transfusions or transplants why would they not be able to "opt" out the same way if legal decisions are based on the same legal principles?

As we post, corporate lawyers across America are preparing briefs explaining why OSHA regulations violate their religious beliefs.

Thus the Supreme Court is giving special protections/liability limits that only a corporation can get on the one hand, and special protections that only individuals, churches and religious organizations get, on the other.
nac

Bellmore, NY

#5 Jul 1, 2014
Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
You have some good point and are well taken.
Yet I have some strong reservations as to where this could lead. Although the decision is worded in a manner attempting to limit it, that may be had to do if law is based on a constitutional legal premise that flows like water.I find it hard to see where a something can only be unconstitutional in one selected set of circumstances. Yet other very closely related issues will be constitutional. Some religious denominations do not believe in blood transfusions or transplants why would they not be able to "opt" out the same way if legal decisions are based on the same legal principles?
As we post, corporate lawyers across America are preparing briefs explaining why OSHA regulations violate their religious beliefs.
You are worried that there will be employers out there that announce to the world that they want to refuse to cover blood transfusions and organ transplants to their employees?

Read that again and ask yourself if there will be companies out there that will open themselves up to a 100%-certain public relations nightmare...

You think that they will do that, knowing full well that they will never be able to recruit and hire top talent ever again???

Are you sure that you've thought this through?
Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Thus the Supreme Court is giving special protections/liability limits that only a corporation can get on the one hand, and special protections that only individuals, churches and religious organizations get, on the other.
Refresh my memory... is this the first time that a change has been made to the ACA since it was implemented? Is this the first time that certain groups have been exempted from certain aspects of the law while others were not?

You didn't have any concerns then. In fact, you defended and praised THAT KIND of selective enforcement.(We've had those arguments, no need to re-hash. I know your stance and you know mine. The law, with the exception of this, has been tinkered exactly to obama's specifications, so take the win.)

I'm not going to go there, but you are opening yourself up to criticism for perhaps being hypocritical. Again, I'm not going to take that road... I believe that you simply haven't thought this through. In a private moment, mull it over.

I know your blood boils when anything associated with the right "wins" ...

But you (and your ACA-at-all-costs agenda) might be better off just letting the christians have this one.
Opinion

Hot Springs, SD

#6 Jul 1, 2014
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
You are worried that there will be employers out there that announce to the world that they want to refuse to cover blood transfusions and organ transplants to their employees?---

I know your blood boils when anything associated with the right "wins" ...
But you (and your ACA-at-all-costs agenda) might be better off just letting the christians have this one.
No I'm not predicting much of anything. Nor am I concerned if the "right wins".

I don't know that one could say that because Hobby Lobby won that they are thus on the right wing side of politics. I would say that their personal secular religion beliefs won without giving the credit to right or left. I tend to believe that many people on the left are just as religious as those on the right that claim to be talking to God and just as Christian in act and deed. But of course that is all up to one's own opinions of their actions and deeds.

I'm more of one that believes that Supreme Court rulings should be based on the constitution and cannot be limited to a singular religious belief. If it is ok for one group operating under the legal protection of a corporation to impose their beliefs then that precedence flows further if constitution law is being the basis.

Much of the decision was based on a law signed by President Clinton which I have a tough time making the connection.

As I stated.Corporations and corporate ownership are quite different than individual private ownership. One is that legally the corporations separates liability away from the individual. So there is a separation between the individual and the company. The whole point of establishing a corporation is to create an entity separate from oneself to limit legal liability. Thus the Supreme Court is giving special protections/liability limits that only a corporation can get on the one hand, and special protections that only individuals, churches and religious organizations get, on the other. It seems awfully dangerous to allow corporations to have it both ways.

I fully realize that the Supreme Court implies that it can rule selectively in this case and deny the very same premised case down the road. I don't think the Constitution should be selective interpreted for the benefit of a select group.

The baker who was order to bake wedding cakes for gay couples in violations of his religious beliefs should apply the same way.

There is no "ACA-at-all-costs agenda for me". I understand the law and how it came to be. I understand that much of that law was written by the right and in committee. I also understand that even after President Obama gave up on the Single Payer System having a chance and accepted the Republican idea of a mandate they all voted against it.

I have said repeatedly that I supported a Single Payer System and maybe someday the ACA will morph into one.
nac

Bellmore, NY

#7 Jul 1, 2014
Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
No I'm not predicting much of anything. Nor am I concerned if the "right wins".
I don't know that one could say that because Hobby Lobby won that they are thus on the right wing side of politics. I would say that their personal secular religion beliefs won without giving the credit to right or left. I tend to believe that many people on the left are just as religious as those on the right that claim to be talking to God and just as Christian in act and deed. But of course that is all up to one's own opinions of their actions and deeds.
I'm more of one that believes that Supreme Court rulings should be based on the constitution and cannot be limited to a singular religious belief. If it is ok for one group operating under the legal protection of a corporation to impose their beliefs then that precedence flows further if constitution law is being the basis.
Much of the decision was based on a law signed by President Clinton which I have a tough time making the connection.
As I stated.Corporations and corporate ownership are quite different than individual private ownership. One is that legally the corporations separates liability away from the individual. So there is a separation between the individual and the company. The whole point of establishing a corporation is to create an entity separate from oneself to limit legal liability. Thus the Supreme Court is giving special protections/liability limits that only a corporation can get on the one hand, and special protections that only individuals, churches and religious organizations get, on the other. It seems awfully dangerous to allow corporations to have it both ways.
I fully realize that the Supreme Court implies that it can rule selectively in this case and deny the very same premised case down the road. I don't think the Constitution should be selective interpreted for the benefit of a select group.
The baker who was order to bake wedding cakes for gay couples in violations of his religious beliefs should apply the same way.
There is no "ACA-at-all-costs agenda for me". I understand the law and how it came to be. I understand that much of that law was written by the right and in committee. I also understand that even after President Obama gave up on the Single Payer System having a chance and accepted the Republican idea of a mandate they all voted against it.
I have said repeatedly that I supported a Single Payer System and maybe someday the ACA will morph into one.
Please go back, read what I wrote ... and respond to THAT.

I know that you desperately want to regurgitate your propaganda...

But save it for another time.

Read what I wrote. Think about it. Respond accordingly, or don't respond at all.

What you just posted had NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I WROTE.

I'm really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, here Polly.

So please... let's both pretend you didn't just do that... and now you can go ahead and read and seriously try to comprehend what I wrote, and respond accordingly.
Opinion

Hot Springs, SD

#8 Jul 1, 2014
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
Please go back, read what I wrote ... and respond to THAT.
I know that you desperately want to regurgitate your propaganda...
But save it for another time.
Read what I wrote. Think about it. Respond accordingly, or don't respond at all.
What you just posted had NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I WROTE.
I'm really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, here Polly.
So please... let's both pretend you didn't just do that... and now you can go ahead and read and seriously try to comprehend what I wrote, and respond accordingly.
Well it appears that Glen Beck Jr. cannot live up to the very deal he proposed. I was even willing to give in return more than I was getting --- just hoping once could have a civil conversation with you. So we are back to were we started.

I answered what I wanted to answer. I thought about the rest of the stupid comments. The rest is too stupid to waste my time on since all you do is want to argue in circles and be nasty..

Go play with someone else I'm tired of your stupidity because all you want to do is have a stupid argument because you cannot get over me having made a fool out of you so many times in the past.

I think an intelligent discussion is beyond your capabilities.

I have to agree with Wild Bills assessment of you = you are not worth the effort anymore.

Go play with someone else.
Except

West Terre Haute, IN

#9 Jul 1, 2014
Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Well it appears that Glen Beck Jr. cannot live up to the very deal he proposed. I was even willing to give in return more than I was getting --- just hoping once could have a civil conversation with you. So we are back to were we started.
I answered what I wanted to answer. I thought about the rest of the stupid comments. The rest is too stupid to waste my time on since all you do is want to argue in circles and be nasty..
Go play with someone else I'm tired of your stupidity because all you want to do is have a stupid argument because you cannot get over me having made a fool out of you so many times in the past.
I think an intelligent discussion is beyond your capabilities.
I have to agree with Wild Bills assessment of you = you are not worth the effort anymore.
Go play with someone else.
Aww did you get your feelings hurt.
Opinion

Hot Springs, SD

#10 Jul 1, 2014
Except wrote:
<quoted text> Aww did you get your feelings hurt.
No not necessarily a deal was struck back in posting 14967

"Ok, I will do my best not to refer to you as Glenn Beck or any other similar name and I will try not to slip up. I don't care if you call me Polly "once in a while" if I really piss you off. I thought about using it as a screen name.

Once and a while I post under the screen name of Nemo Noone. But since I have used Opinion on this forum likely that is what I will stick with.

More important is lets try to have some reasonable disagreements and possible agreements as adult while both of us are showing some respect to each other."

The most important part of the deal was . the last sentence:

"More important is lets try to have some reasonable disagreements and possible agreements as adult while both of us are showing some respect to each other."

That evidently is a result of his reading comprehension skills deficit. I expect a man to live up to his word if he makes an agreement.
Except

West Terre Haute, IN

#11 Jul 1, 2014
Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
No not necessarily a deal was struck back in posting 14967
"Ok, I will do my best not to refer to you as Glenn Beck or any other similar name and I will try not to slip up. I don't care if you call me Polly "once in a while" if I really piss you off. I thought about using it as a screen name.
Once and a while I post under the screen name of Nemo Noone. But since I have used Opinion on this forum likely that is what I will stick with.
More important is lets try to have some reasonable disagreements and possible agreements as adult while both of us are showing some respect to each other."
The most important part of the deal was . the last sentence:
"More important is lets try to have some reasonable disagreements and possible agreements as adult while both of us are showing some respect to each other."
That evidently is a result of his reading comprehension skills deficit. I expect a man to live up to his word if he makes an agreement.
Wow you really really really did get you wittle feelings hurt are you going to be ok.
Opinion

Hot Springs, SD

#12 Jul 1, 2014
Except wrote:
<quoted text> Wow you really really really did get you wittle feelings hurt are you going to be ok.
I'm more concerned about a bad legal decision that should have been based on Constitutional law rather than one's political and religious feelings.

I believe the four Justices that voted in the minority were correct in the concurring dissent.

The pertinent parts are "in part" referred to below:

Until this litigation, no decision of this Court recognized a for-profit corporation’s qualification for a religious ex-emption from a generally applicable law, whether under the Free Exercise Clause. The absence of such precedent is just what one would expect, for the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities.

Would the exemption the Court holds RFRA demands for employers with religiously grounded objections to the use of certain contraceptives extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)?

"In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.

The court has likely "ventured into a minefield.

I would confine religious exemptions under that Act to organiza-tions formed “for a religious purpose,”“engage primarily in carrying out that religious purpose,” and not “engaged... substantially in the exchange of goods or services for money beyond nominal amounts.”

This is what I basically think and stated above. If you disagree you are welcome to make a coherent and intelligent reply hopefully without one line stupidity just to argue.
nac

Bellmore, NY

#13 Jul 1, 2014
Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Well it appears that Glen Beck Jr. cannot live up to the very deal he proposed. I was even willing to give in return more than I was getting --- just hoping once could have a civil conversation with you. So we are back to were we started.
I answered what I wanted to answer. I thought about the rest of the stupid comments. The rest is too stupid to waste my time on since all you do is want to argue in circles and be nasty..
Go play with someone else I'm tired of your stupidity because all you want to do is have a stupid argument because you cannot get over me having made a fool out of you so many times in the past.
I think an intelligent discussion is beyond your capabilities.
I have to agree with Wild Bills assessment of you = you are not worth the effort anymore.
Go play with someone else.
Fair enough, Polly... If you cant answer specific questions, by all means deflect and defer to to the other posters that you fellate.

Feel good?

It's much easier than answering for your posts.

If you have a shed of integrity, and it's clear that you don't... you'd answer my post #5... line by line.
But you can't. Because you are wrong.

If you were right, you wouldn't need to run away.

Your boyfriend bill has nothing to to with this, polly.

Go back and answer POST #5.

Can you? Of course you can't. Reality gets in the way of your ideology.

Fork in the road, polly... which way do you want to go?

You can keep lying and be a partisan shill... or you can start thinking for yourself...

What is it going to be, polly? Will you answer Post #5 or not?

(if need be, ask your husband bill)
Except

West Terre Haute, IN

#14 Jul 1, 2014
Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm more concerned about a bad legal decision that should have been based on Constitutional law rather than one's political and religious feelings.
I believe the four Justices that voted in the minority were correct in the concurring dissent.
The pertinent parts are "in part" referred to below:
Until this litigation, no decision of this Court recognized a for-profit corporation’s qualification for a religious ex-emption from a generally applicable law, whether under the Free Exercise Clause. The absence of such precedent is just what one would expect, for the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities.
Would the exemption the Court holds RFRA demands for employers with religiously grounded objections to the use of certain contraceptives extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)?
"In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.
The court has likely "ventured into a minefield.
I would confine religious exemptions under that Act to organiza-tions formed “for a religious purpose,”“engage primarily in carrying out that religious purpose,” and not “engaged... substantially in the exchange of goods or services for money beyond nominal amounts.”
This is what I basically think and stated above. If you disagree you are welcome to make a coherent and intelligent reply hopefully without one line stupidity just to argue.
O that's right presidents only appoint judges that are best for the job and political affiliation never never is a factor. Your whole facade is beginning to crumble.
Opinion

Hot Springs, SD

#15 Jul 1, 2014
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
Fair enough, Polly... If you cant answer specific questions, by all means deflect and defer to to the other posters that you fellate.
Feel good?
It's much easier than answering for your posts.
If you have a shed of integrity, and it's clear that you don't... you'd answer my post #5... line by line.
But you can't. Because you are wrong.
If you were right, you wouldn't need to run away.
Your boyfriend bill has nothing to to with this, polly.
Go back and answer POST #5.
Can you? Of course you can't. Reality gets in the way of your ideology.
Fork in the road, polly... which way do you want to go?
You can keep lying and be a partisan shill... or you can start thinking for yourself...
What is it going to be, polly? Will you answer Post #5 or not?
(if need be, ask your husband bill)
You are worried that there will be employers out there that announce to the world that they want to refuse to cover blood transfusions and organ transplants to their employees?
You think that they will do that, knowing full well that they will never be able to recruit and hire top talent ever again???

Answered: IN the reply –“ No I'm not predicting much of anything”.

Are you sure that you've thought this through? My posting so indicated that.

Refresh my memory... is this the first time that a change has been made to the ACA since it was implemented? Is this the first time that certain groups have been exempted from certain aspects of the law while others were not?

Yes and I stated at the beginning a Corporation is different than a religious group. That answer was provided in the previous posting which read:

“Thus the Supreme Court is giving special protections/liability limits that only a corporation can get on the one hand, and special protections that only individuals, churches and religious organizations get, on the other.”

What part did I not answer that you want made clearer?
Opinion

Hot Springs, SD

#16 Jul 1, 2014
Except wrote:
<quoted text> O that's right presidents only appoint judges that are best for the job and political affiliation never never is a factor. Your whole facade is beginning to crumble.
Please re-read the last line in my posting you just replied to. I think you missed it.
Except

West Terre Haute, IN

#17 Jul 1, 2014
Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Please re-read the last line in my posting you just replied to. I think you missed it.
Nope I'm clear.
Opinion

Hot Springs, SD

#18 Jul 1, 2014
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
Fair enough, Polly... If you cant answer specific questions, by all means deflect and defer to to the other posters that you fellate.
Feel good?
It's much easier than answering for your posts.
If you have a shed of integrity, and it's clear that you don't... you'd answer my post #5... line by line.
But you can't. Because you are wrong.
If you were right, you wouldn't need to run away.
Your boyfriend bill has nothing to to with this, polly.
Go back and answer POST #5.
Can you? Of course you can't. Reality gets in the way of your ideology.
Fork in the road, polly... which way do you want to go?
You can keep lying and be a partisan shill... or you can start thinking for yourself...
What is it going to be, polly? Will you answer Post #5 or not?
(if need be, ask your husband bill)
Why do you have to turn into a nasty little boy/man with all the insults when you get mad?

Do you try that stuff when you are standing face to face with another man? I doubt it.

But it's easy to have the big mouth when you can hid behind a computer. But for any person that has a lick of intelligence they see you for how you act.
Except

West Terre Haute, IN

#19 Jul 1, 2014
Opinion wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you have to turn into a nasty little boy/man with all the insults when you get mad?
Do you try that stuff when you are standing face to face with another man? I doubt it.
But it's easy to have the big mouth when you can hid behind a computer. But for any person that has a lick of intelligence they see you for how you act.
Your the one that turns all nasty and your doing it right now. How come you can't follow your own standards.
Opinion

Hot Springs, SD

#20 Jul 1, 2014
Except wrote:
<quoted text> Your the one that turns all nasty and your doing it right now. How come you can't follow your own standards.
I would and do with most posters but if needed I can take the gloves off and rolling in the dirt with them.

I don't know exactly how all this concerns you but you seem to have an interest in me and "nac" discussing each other's conduct and feel I'm picking on him.

Is there something in regards to a subject matter you wish to respond to regarding the Hobby Lobby case or are you just buzzing around popping one liners?

You could spend that time posting something intelligent. As to me picking on "nac" I could give a rat's ass about your opinion on the matter. He's a big boy/man and can stand up for himself. Well maybe not face to face but likely neither could you so why bother me?/.
Pollys Opinion

Hot Springs, SD

#21 Jul 2, 2014
Article right at the top of Topix New York

Here we go. Just as I expected.

http://politix.topix.com/story/12873-after-ho...

After Hobby Lobby, Religious Groups Are Seeking the Right to Not Hire Gay People

As religious and civic leaders who seek to advance the common good, we write to urge you to include a religious exemption in your planned executive order addressing federal contractors and LGBT employment policies. We have great appreciation for your commitment to human dignity and justice, and we share those values with you. With respect to the proposed executive order, we agree that banning discrimination is a good thing. We believe that all persons are created in the divine image of the creator, and are worthy of respect and love, without exception. Even so, it still may not be possible for all sides to reach a consensus on every issue. That is why we are asking that an extension of protection for one group not come at the expense of faith communities whose religious identity and beliefs motivate them to serve those in need.
Signed by:
Dr. Joel C. Hunter Senior Pastor, Northland, A Church Distributed Fr. Larry Snyder CEO, Catholic Charities USA Kathy Dahlkemper County Executive, Erie County PA Former Member of Congress Dr. Rick Warren Senior Pastor, Saddleback Church Gabe Lyons President, Q Ideas Dr. Stephen Schneck Director, Institute for Religion & Democracy The Catholic University of America Michael Wear Consultant National Faith Vote Director, Obama for America 2012 Stephanie Summers CEO, Center for Public Justice Rev. Noel Castellanos CEO, Christian Community Development Association

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jackson-Heights Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Hillary Clinton fans mob New York bookstore for... 4 min soldnobooks 9
Free enterprise? London fires Uber 9 min George Washington 1
Giants talk back (Dec '06) 16 min Bobby V 6,774
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 25 min jimi-yank 340,258
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr weapon X 317,482
TRUMP to have REPUBLICAN GUARD at WHITEHOUSE ! 1 hr TRUMP WALL a NO-GO 13
NORF KOREA to Invent FUSION POWER Next ! 1 hr STEVEN COLD BEAR ... 12

Jackson-Heights Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Jackson-Heights Mortgages