You still have not read the decision have you?

Direct quote from the opinion:

"RFRA applies to “a person’s” exercise of religion, 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb–1(a), (b), and RFRA itself does not define the term “person.” We therefore look to the Dictionary Act, which we must consult “n determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise.” 1 U. S. C. §1.

Under the Dictionary Act, “the wor[d] ‘person’ . . . include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals.” Ibid."

They went done cause they got hacked, Still everyone is doing an auction site, cryptothrift done one

You do realize that you just agreed with the Hobby Lobby decision, right? You just pointed out the efficacy of the exact law that Hobby Lobby was decided under.

Taxing existing larger banks is not going to solve the problem of capital requirements for smaller banks, nor is it going to solve the interest rate problem for savers and borrowers. In fact, it would have the reverse effect--higher taxes will mean less profits for banks, so they will lower the interest rates they pay and increase the interest rates they charge.

So you would vastly increase the cost of bureaucracy and you likely would still get lesser qualified candidates even with the higher salary because workers desire lateral mobility.
What do you do for a living?

You are conflating a corporation's state law charter with the question of whether it has federal constitutional rights. That Arizona law, or any state law for that matter, would not give a corporation federal due process rights or protect it from abrogation of its contracts by the federal government.

First, please explain how contract rights, due process, etc. would not be eliminated by a constitutional amendment "to explicitly ban corporations and other liability-shielding business structures from being considered to have Constittuional [sic] rights."

Second, what you are arguing for is similar to a non-compete. Look at some of the economic research on the cost of non-compete clauses--I think you will find that they result in massive wage premiums of 100 to 400%.

Third, increasing capital requirements for private banks will have (and is already having) a major negative unintended consequence: further bank consolidation and concentration of capital. And, the larger capital requirements, makes it harder for new entrants, further entrenching existing interests.

Not unless he had killed our outdoor dogs, and "IF" he had NOT, we would know he was coming before he arrived. I have never shot at a plane flying over my property, however, an uninvited drone is burned toast.

And yet you're a government worker, an enforcer.   This is a problem, sana.  Cognitive disconnect.

It still precludes you getting a permit to carry a gun in MOST cases, 'violent' crime or not.

http://www.gunlawsbystate.com/felons-and-firearms/

Are you a convicted felon?   No gun for you.   Sorry, zolace.

lol ,never

i already pay btc for my pizza, but only in restaurant ,but having your pizza being delivered by drones...that i would love to see, plus no more tips......

I will shoot a drone over my property in a heartbeat "IF" I see it, and it is within range.

Registration of ALL guns would do that; but then, it would also let the government know what guns you have, and with your delusional paranoia, you think that the government would then come for your guns and you would be defenseless.  Even though it would stop criminals from obtaining guns, because the undocumented flow would cease, your fear of your own government prevents you from advocating it.  Is this not the truth?

Yes, I would. More importantly, if I came upon a car wreck that YOU were involved in, I WOULD stop and render aid. It's what decent, civilized people do. Are you suggesting that you would not?

Private eyes using drones to catch cheating spouses

Investigators are taking drones to new heights — using the remote-controlled aircraft to catch New Yorkers cheating on spouses, lying about disabilities and endangering their kids.

“People want you to believe there’s all this negativity associated with drones . . . but they could be a very helpful tool,” said Olwyn Triggs, a gumshoe for 23 years and president of Professional Investigators Network Inc. in Glen Cove, LI. Triggs recently used a drone to find an upstate man suspected of insurance fraud. Signs on his rural property warned that trespassers would be shot, so she sent in her 2-pound, foot-long Phantom 2 Vision quadcopter, which costs about $1,000. “He was supposedly fully disabled,” she said. “We knew he was active but couldn’t prove it because of the layout of the property. I couldn’t risk being shot.” So, as a drone hovered above, snapping images of the man chopping wood, Triggs manned the controls from behind a vehicle about 1,000 feet away.

PIs are also using drones to catch cheating spouses. Matthew Seifer recently pretended to test-fly a drone in Central Park. He was actually recording a husband fooling around with a female coworker from 100 feet away. “Sometimes the best thing is to be right there in plain sight,” said Seifer, president of Long Island- based Executive Investigations.“We had to get in and get out real quick,” he added. “We deployed a drone for eight minutes and got five minutes’ worth of video. That was the closure our client was looking for.”

In another recent case, Seifer was having trouble tailing a fast-driving Long Island doctor suspected of hanky-panky. So the PI parked behind a steakhouse where the doc had taken a lover. “We raised the drone above the restaurant, [and] he was engaged in a sexual act in the front seat of his car,” the investigator said.

“Clients are amazed,” Seifer said. “The drones are a game changer.”

http://nypost.com/2014/07/13/private-eyes-using-drones-to-nab-scammers-cheating-spouses/

Insect drones:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cJv4O2zEOw

 If you're up to some hanky-panky better keep your eyes on the sky. I suspect its harder to get away with anything these days what with all the cameras and drones flying around looking for evidence or just spying for the hell of it. I recently saw a video [see link] about the military creating insect drones. They are hard to differentiate from the real insect. No doubt in the future these miniature drones will be of considerable use for the military and police but the threat of the government using them to illegally spy on citizens will be present as well. Is all this a good idea or should laws exist to control the uses of these things? Once the cat is out of the bag its hard getting it back in. What do you think?

The goal of everyone in the party whose ideology differs from that of the party in power is to insure that the empowered ideology does not advance same. 

Please, save us the less executive order bullcrap---the orders are vastly different in flavor and intent, and you are bright enough to know this.  Why you waste your talents protecting a sack of crap who'd watch you die without a flicker of emotion is amazing to me.

Want to talk about complete abdication of responsibility?  Let's talk about Mr. Blame Bush first.  The guy who is SO disrespected by those he appointed that they don't even bother to inform him when they run guns or target the IRS.

Wow what a waste of time, instead of thinking of ways to innovate the movie industry with the internet they wanna put peoples in jail.  If I can pay to watch movies from my home I would.  I dont care for movie theaters anymore when I have big screen TV at home.

So we can't tell the same political joke that has been told many times with other men/women/party substitutions, but straight up calling a conservative woman a pig is fine.