She shared her opinion on LinkedIn. You know, the jobs site that only has a social media aspect to facilitate networking (nepotism) for job-related purposes. I don’t know what possible positive outcome she was expecting. The only potential outcomes of posting your opinion on LinkedIn are everyone ignores you or you get fired. She flipped her coin and it landed wrong-side-up.
Landlords aren’t defined by literally owning land or literally being lords. If you own living space you rent out, you’re a landlord, even if your apartments are mobile (including both RVs and houseboats).
But listen, I support you and your choices. This is not me being critical. We’re just having this conversation in a space where it’s much more in vogue to hate anyone who owns living space they rent out.
You’re supposing the judge obeyed the Constitution here. He did not; freedom of religion is not freedom to defraud, and the people selling this drug are committing fraud.
To landlords, who will charge arbitrarily high rent, secure in the knowledge that they aren’t in a free market due to inelasticity of demand (people can’t do without shelter) and supply (there are finite places to live). That will let them pay the insurance premiums homeowners can’t afford.
The real problem here from a governance standpoint is that executive orders are fundamentally anathema to the rule of law - but no judge is going to invalidate them on a conceptual level. Every legislature in the country loves unconstitutionally abrogating its responsibilities by delegating the executive.