Like "Tiffany Blue", UPS has its branding associated with a particular color. There's a difference. People don't prefer colors so people will have an easier time recognizing them. Their favorite color appeals to their subjective tastes. Saying a business has subjective tastes is like saying the number 8 has a crush on 9. You are anthropomorphizing the business despite it being a legal entity and not a person.

I'm aware of LLC's that can do that so they don't have to pay corporate taxes on the profit and then pay income tax by transferring the money to the owner. However, the benefit of such a company is still that your net income is taxed rather than your gross. Without a corporate status, you would be paying income tax on any and all revenue but with the tax benefits of an LLC, you get to write off your operating expenses and or money routed into business expansion instead of your own pocket.

Can you spend the company money on whatever you want, like a new house or a boat for yourself? No. That's embezzlement. The money belongs to the company until it is paid out to you. You may be able to make that decision, but the company exists as a separate entity from you for legal and tax purposes. That separate entity doesn't have a religion any more than it has a favorite color. It is not a person.

Time to start the Church Ad Absurdum. Wherein its followers can do anything and everything they want as religious practice, everything is sacred, and everything is against the religion.

Yes, because we all know that there are more jobs than employable people and we can all make the decision about which job to take based on which has the best health coverage rather than needs like food and housing...

Sure, the employees can still buy contraception, at a higher price and out of their own pocket. Hobby Lobby is using its position of power over the employees disadvantage those that need contraceptive care and force the owners' religious views on them.

In one scenario, Hobby Lobby pays the insurance company who pays the pharmacy who gives the contraception to the employee. In the second scenario, Hobby Lobby pays the employee who pays the pharmacy who gives the contraception to the employee. Hobby Lobby is the same distance from the use of contraception in both cases. The only difference is that in the second case the company is using its position of power to disadvantage the employee who has to pay a higher cost out of pocket for an important medial good.

Come on, guys. Post the damn transcript instead of a stupid video.

Problems like how to treat their employees like human beings rather than disposable trash?

Wow. As if the poor parts of town weren't crime-ridden enough already, you want them to be practically un-policed because they can't afford it? I'd much prefer my money go into a generalized geographical pool so I don't have to be escorted by a private bodyguard whenever I leave my safe little bubble of a neighborhood.

Better yet, make the law that without the camera on, the cop loses all privileges normally enjoyed by law enforcement officers. If he injures or kills anyone, he goes to jail for murder or assault like anyone else.

Mankind extending its reach out to space is like moving out of your parent's house when you're an adult. It might not make the most sense financially but it's important for you to learn how to make it out there on your own. It's for your own good.

Greed is good if you have money and want more. Greed is bad if you don't have money but you want more.

"You want how much for working at McDonalds!?!? Fuck that! Now where's my capital gains tax break?"

No. It goes like this:

1. They take $50 from your taxes
2. Hand that money to people that are not doing anything productive
3. They spend that money, first and foremost, on things that they need
4. People that produce things they need hire more workers to handle the increase in demand.
5. People that were previously doing nothing productive now have a job and take their wages and contribute back to the economy.

Wealth redistribution should be more thought of as demand redistribution. People without wealth still have needs but have no way to express that within the market. Past a certain point, what you have are wants rather than needs. While I'm sure you think your wants are more important because you are capable of managing and hiring a bunch of minimum wage drones and keeping the profits to yourself, some people realize that it's worth sacrificing the wants of some to fulfill the needs of others. Taxing for welfare allows those needs to have a voice in the market where they otherwise would be ignored.

Free riders are a solved problem. The state I attended college in, Florida, has a tuition assistance program called "Bright Futures". It pays 50%/75%/100% of your tuition based on your HS and college grades regardless of need. However, if you flunk out of even one class, you have to pay them back the money you got for that class. I don't know the exact rules if you don't graduate but you could also make people pay the money back if they fail to graduate.

Ultimately, though, all we're talking about here is tuition. Not a full "free ride". Someone who goes to college just to party still has to pay room and board, food costs, school fees, etc.