Sarcasm and whatnot aside, this is a pretty sickening commentary about modern Christianity. Jesus was VERY outspoken about the need to support the poor. Jesus didn't say anything about birth control or homosexuality, but he did talk at length about the poor.
The bible also says usury is a Sin so anyone with loans its time to forgive them they are against Christianity.
However, governments who pass laws forcing employers to pay for things that violate their personal beliefs IS treating them like second class citizens. One class gets penalized when another class doesn't.
Going to take this as the focus of your argument and stop you right here.
No it isn't, corporations are not people, people are not the corporations they make. A platitude that you and that worthless old *** Scalia don't comprehend.
However, governments who pass laws forcing employers to pay for things that violate their personal beliefs IS treating them like second class citizens. One class gets penalized when another class doesn't.
Going to take this as the focus of your argument and stop you right here.
No it isn't, corporations are not people, people are not the corporations they make. A platitude that you and that worthless old *** Scalia don't comprehend.
People don't give up their rights when they decide to start companies.
However, governments who pass laws forcing employers to pay for things that violate their personal beliefs IS treating them like second class citizens. One class gets penalized when another class doesn't.
Going to take this as the focus of your argument and stop you right here.
No it isn't, corporations are not people, people are not the corporations they make. A platitude that you and that worthless old *** Scalia don't comprehend.
Type that again after you read the Citizens United decision. :)
Your employer has a the RIGHT to not pay for that if it violates or inhibits the free practice of their religion. You have that right too.
Ok, I get it, you don't know the difference between "god given rights" and "entitlement".
Quote:
People don't give up their rights when they decide to start companies.
How is this different than people giving up rights when they decide to work for a company? I'm curious how you rationalize the disparity between these 2 groups. One group doesn't surrender anything when entering into a known arrangement, but the other group surrenders anything the first group decides when entering into an arrangement.
Your employer has a the RIGHT to not pay for that if it violates or inhibits the free practice of their religion. You have that right too.
Ok, I get it, you don't know the difference between "god given rights" and "entitlement".
Actually, in this case it's Scalia given rights. The good Scalia giveth, the good Scalia taketh away.
Scalia is only one Justice. There is a big logical disconnect when justices are appointed as supporters of demographic viewpoints instead of being strictly arbiters of the constitution as they were designed.
There is a big logical disconnect when justices are appointed as supporters of demographic viewpoints instead of being strictly arbiters of the constitution as they were designed.
Welcome to the U.S. government. And please don't pretend it's only one side that does it.
There is a big logical disconnect when justices are appointed as supporters of demographic viewpoints instead of being strictly arbiters of the constitution as they were designed.
Welcome to the U.S. government. And please don't pretend it's only one side that does it.
What part of my statement infers that either "side" does anything? This is a religious based ruling, Scalia and Thomas are both deeply religious and frame their legal reasoning around it very often. If we were talking about a different issue, the justices in question might be different. I won't get into the fact that they were both appointed by Reagan and a republican senate or that they are repeatedly called out for judicial misconduct and make public statements that sound like they came from the Westboro Baptist Church.
There is a big logical disconnect when justices are appointed as supporters of demographic viewpoints instead of being strictly arbiters of the constitution as they were designed.
Welcome to the U.S. government. And please don't pretend it's only one side that does it.
Oh, both sides do it.
Which is why the working middle class is constantly screwed by decisions like these.
Calling that scumbag Scalia "good" even in jest is a travesty. Then again, they like introduce him as "the honorable" as well, which is stomach-churning.
Fair enough. But you pseudo-conservatives crack me up.
The word is "moderate".
Though that word is the kiss of death in today's Republican party. Giving a single ideological inch to gain a collective mile for the people of this country is viewed as a loss by the sociopathic standards of conservativespoliticians* today.
Calling that scumbag Scalia "good" even in jest is a travesty.
Then again, they like introduce him as "the honorable" as well, which is stomach-churning.
Fair enough. But you pseudo-conservatives crack me up.
I'm not a pseudo anything, I'm a conservative in every respect, bordering on libertarian. What I'm not, is a zealot or cheerleader.
A borderline libertarian defending the ACA? Man, I'm confused.
When did I defend ACA? There's plenty of laws in this country that I don't agree with, but they are laws that must be obeyed once they have been challenged. It has to go both ways, you can't only follow the laws you agree with, hence my disgust over this ruling.
It was the justice who switched sides to push the ACA through that then sided with this latest ruling in the first place. Gosh, I sure do hate it when people push through legislation I disagree with then modify it slightly back to the way things were before.
It was the justice who switched sides to push the ACA through that then sided with this latest ruling in the first place. Gosh, I sure do hate it when people push through legislation I disagree with then modify it slightly back to the way things were before.
I hate it when legislation is passed then immediately challenged by people who voted for it. I hate when legislation needs immediate modification. I hate when exceptions are constantly granted based on perceived religious freedoms of only one group. I hate when legislators walk out of session and head directly to the news cameras to give a professional wrestling style post-mortem. But, mostly, I hate when government officials are allowed to rampage, unchecked, doing the bidding of highly-funded interest groups. And, that, is a non-partisan opinion.
Your employer has a the RIGHT to not pay for that if it violates or inhibits the free practice of their religion. You have that right too.
Ok, I get it, you don't know the difference between "god given rights" and "entitlement".
Quote:
People don't give up their rights when they decide to start companies.
How is this different than people giving up rights when they decide to work for a company? I'm curious how you rationalize the disparity between these 2 groups. One group doesn't surrender anything when entering into a known arrangement, but the other group surrenders anything the first group decides when entering into an arrangement.
One cannot be entitled to oppress another person's right.
What right are you giving up when you work for a company?
Your employer has a the RIGHT to not pay for that if it violates or inhibits the free practice of their religion. You have that right too.
Ok, I get it, you don't know the difference between "god given rights" and "entitlement".
Quote:
People don't give up their rights when they decide to start companies.
How is this different than people giving up rights when they decide to work for a company? I'm curious how you rationalize the disparity between these 2 groups. One group doesn't surrender anything when entering into a known arrangement, but the other group surrenders anything the first group decides when entering into an arrangement.
One cannot be entitled to oppress another person's right.
What right are you giving up when you work for a company?
Apparently the ability to negotiate compensation. "don't like it, quit"
Edit: Also, please don't immediately start paraphrasing the first amendment, the right to negotiate the terms of a contract are paramount to capitalism, far moreso than religious freedoms.
Your employer has a the RIGHT to not pay for that if it violates or inhibits the free practice of their religion. You have that right too.
Ok, I get it, you don't know the difference between "god given rights" and "entitlement".
Quote:
People don't give up their rights when they decide to start companies.
How is this different than people giving up rights when they decide to work for a company? I'm curious how you rationalize the disparity between these 2 groups. One group doesn't surrender anything when entering into a known arrangement, but the other group surrenders anything the first group decides when entering into an arrangement.
One cannot be entitled to oppress another person's right.
What right are you giving up when you work for a company?
Apparently the ability to negotiate compensation. "don't like it, quit"
Edit: Also, please don't immediately start paraphrasing the first amendment, the right to negotiate the terms of a contract are paramount to capitalism, far moreso than religious freedoms.
Ah so you're references a right that doesn't exist? Or just one that you think should be common sense? I'm just trying to understand what you're talking about.
Also, not getting what you want doesn't mean the other party didn't negotiate.
Your employer has a the RIGHT to not pay for that if it violates or inhibits the free practice of their religion. You have that right too.
Ok, I get it, you don't know the difference between "god given rights" and "entitlement".
Quote:
People don't give up their rights when they decide to start companies.
How is this different than people giving up rights when they decide to work for a company? I'm curious how you rationalize the disparity between these 2 groups. One group doesn't surrender anything when entering into a known arrangement, but the other group surrenders anything the first group decides when entering into an arrangement.
One cannot be entitled to oppress another person's right.
What right are you giving up when you work for a company?
Apparently the ability to negotiate compensation. "don't like it, quit"
Edit: Also, please don't immediately start paraphrasing the first amendment, the right to negotiate the terms of a contract are paramount to capitalism, far moreso than religious freedoms.
Ah so you're references a right that doesn't exist? Or just one that you think should be common sense? I'm just trying to understand what you're talking about.
Also, not getting what you want doesn't mean the other party didn't negotiate.
ACA says they are entitled to that coverage, regardless of how you justify it. I didn't see any outrage at the government now being required to pick up the tab. How is that not a conservative issue?
What we're talking about is a company having the right to drop benefits that are guaranteed by law with an employee's only right being unemployment. It's not a right that doesn't exist, you have the right to negotiate ANY contractual agreement, even if the only option is terminating that agreement.
Your employer has a the RIGHT to not pay for that if it violates or inhibits the free practice of their religion. You have that right too.
Ok, I get it, you don't know the difference between "god given rights" and "entitlement".
Actually, in this case it's Scalia given rights. The good Scalia giveth, the good Scalia taketh away.
Scalia is only one Justice. There is a big logical disconnect when justices are appointed as supporters of demographic viewpoints instead of being strictly arbiters of the constitution as they were designed.
However, governments who pass laws forcing employers to pay for things that violate their personal beliefs IS treating them like second class citizens. One class gets penalized when another class doesn't.
Going to take this as the focus of your argument and stop you right here.
No it isn't, corporations are not people, people are not the corporations they make. A platitude that you and that worthless old *** Scalia don't comprehend.
People don't give up their rights when they decide to start companies.
Never said they did, but those rights aren't transferred to the company either.
However, governments who pass laws forcing employers to pay for things that violate their personal beliefs IS treating them like second class citizens. One class gets penalized when another class doesn't.
Going to take this as the focus of your argument and stop you right here.
No it isn't, corporations are not people, people are not the corporations they make. A platitude that you and that worthless old *** Scalia don't comprehend.
Type that again after you read the Citizens United decision. :)
I know the decision, and they don't have the authority to make it.
Your employer has a the RIGHT to not pay for that if it violates or inhibits the free practice of their religion. You have that right too.
Ok, I get it, you don't know the difference between "god given rights" and "entitlement".
Quote:
People don't give up their rights when they decide to start companies.
How is this different than people giving up rights when they decide to work for a company? I'm curious how you rationalize the disparity between these 2 groups. One group doesn't surrender anything when entering into a known arrangement, but the other group surrenders anything the first group decides when entering into an arrangement.
One cannot be entitled to oppress another person's right.
What right are you giving up when you work for a company?
Apparently the ability to negotiate compensation. "don't like it, quit"
Edit: Also, please don't immediately start paraphrasing the first amendment, the right to negotiate the terms of a contract are paramount to capitalism, far moreso than religious freedoms.
Ah so you're references a right that doesn't exist? Or just one that you think should be common sense? I'm just trying to understand what you're talking about.
Also, not getting what you want doesn't mean the other party didn't negotiate.
ACA says they are entitled to that coverage, regardless of how you justify it. I didn't see any outrage at the government now being required to pick up the tab. How is that not a conservative issue?
What we're talking about is a company having the right to drop benefits that are guaranteed by law with an employee's only right being unemployment. It's not a right that doesn't exist, you have the right to negotiate ANY contractual agreement, even if the only option is terminating that agreement.
Oh go whine someplace else about the outrage at the government picking up the tab. I have said in many-a-subject that the ACA & the slow march towards single payer is the wrong direction since before 2008 simply because it's not your neighbors responsibility to pay for your healthcare. This is not the topic at hand.
The US being founded on a constitution and a bill of rights, congress and the president cannot pass a law confiscating guns nor ordering the quarrying of troops in private homes nor (insert amendment here). Laws passed that violate these principles are not valid and are nullified by the fact that they do not align constitutionally with our founding principles.
I know it may seen old and busted to follow such "traditional" principles but trust me, you'll be happy in the future that they're still there, if they are.
Your employer has a the RIGHT to not pay for that if it violates or inhibits the free practice of their religion. You have that right too.
Ok, I get it, you don't know the difference between "god given rights" and "entitlement".
Quote:
People don't give up their rights when they decide to start companies.
How is this different than people giving up rights when they decide to work for a company? I'm curious how you rationalize the disparity between these 2 groups. One group doesn't surrender anything when entering into a known arrangement, but the other group surrenders anything the first group decides when entering into an arrangement.
One cannot be entitled to oppress another person's right.
What right are you giving up when you work for a company?
Apparently the ability to negotiate compensation. "don't like it, quit"
Edit: Also, please don't immediately start paraphrasing the first amendment, the right to negotiate the terms of a contract are paramount to capitalism, far moreso than religious freedoms.
Ah so you're references a right that doesn't exist? Or just one that you think should be common sense? I'm just trying to understand what you're talking about.
Also, not getting what you want doesn't mean the other party didn't negotiate.
ACA says they are entitled to that coverage, regardless of how you justify it. I didn't see any outrage at the government now being required to pick up the tab. How is that not a conservative issue?
What we're talking about is a company having the right to drop benefits that are guaranteed by law with an employee's only right being unemployment. It's not a right that doesn't exist, you have the right to negotiate ANY contractual agreement, even if the only option is terminating that agreement.
Oh go whine someplace else about the outrage at the government picking up the tab. I have said in many-a-subject that the ACA & the slow march towards single payer is the wrong direction since before 2008 simply because it's not your neighbors responsibility to pay for your healthcare. This is not the topic at hand.
The US being founded on a constitution and a bill of rights, congress and the president cannot pass a law confiscating guns nor ordering the quarrying of troops in private homes nor (insert amendment here). Laws passed that violate these principles are not valid and are nullified by the fact that they do not align constitutionally with our founding principles.
I know it may seen old and busted to follow such "traditional" principles but trust me, you'll be happy in the future that they're still there, if they are.
The rate we are going with things like NDAA HR347 Executive privel... er Orders a plenty that is a mighty big IF.
@ Jetackuu
Accept that they did and it wont be overturned any time soon. Our Government is very easy to figure out. If it makes money for some larger contributing entity its getting passed and it will be ratified via Supreme Court. It doesn't matter left or right conservative or Liberal blue or Red at the end of the day you and your rights do not mean jack squat unless you have the money to backup said rights.
I’ve often said that these conservatives wading into the tricky waters of claiming “religious freedom” to justify breaking (or passing) laws should really be careful what they wish for. It’s advice I’d give to all of those conservatives who are celebrating the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling.
And based on his brilliant response to that ruling, George Takei seems to be an individual who understands this as well.
Posting his response on the website for his play Allegiance, Takei made several fantastic points concerning not only the hypocrisy of this ruling, but the dangerous precedent it could set going forward.
Takei wrote, “The ruling elevates the rights of a FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION over those of its women employees and opens the door to all manner of claims that a company can refuse services based on its owner’s religion.”
“Think about the ramifications: As Justice Ginsberg’s stinging dissent pointed out, companies run by Scientologists could refuse to cover antidepressants, and those run by Jews or Hindus could refuse to cover medications derived from pigs (such as many anesthetics, intravenous fluids, or medications coated in gelatin).” he continued.
And that’s the slippery slope for which this ruling potentially opens the door. Where will the line be drawn where you say to a company, “Sorry, but your religious beliefs aren’t protected?”
What if someone who owns a corporation is anti-vaccine? What if they then say it’s against their religious beliefs for their company to offer health care that covers vaccines? Based upon this Supreme Court ruling, they could theoretically be within their rights to claim that.
But the best point Takei made was in a direct shot at right-wing ignorance. He wrote, “In this case, the owners happen to be deeply Christian; one wonders whether the case would have come out differently if a Muslim-run chain business attempted to impose Sharia law on its employees.”
As we all know, when these conservatives talk about “religious freedoms” they’re really only referring to Christianity.
He also went on to make the point that Hobby Lobby has invested in companies which produce the morning after pill and it gets much of its inventory from China, a country where forced abortions are common.
In other words, they’re blatant hypocrites.
“Hobby Lobby is not a church. It’s a business — and a big one at that,” Takei continued. “Businesses must and should be required to comply with neutrally crafted laws of general applicability. Your boss should not have a say over your healthcare. Once the law starts permitting exceptions based on “sincerely held religious beliefs” there’s no end to the mischief and discrimination that will ensue. Indeed, this is the same logic that certain restaurants and hotels have been trying to deploy to allow proprietors to refuse service to gay couples.”
Once again, he’s absolutely right.
For some reason conservatives seem to think that a lack of options equates to “more” freedom. Before this ruling, women working at Hobby Lobby had the option to have access to these contraceptives. Now they won’t.
If the owners of Hobby Lobby reject specific types of contraceptives, that’s fine. They don’t have to use them. But now their beliefs are being imposed on women who might not share those same beliefs.
Take a good look, because that’s how an employer can determine an employee’s health care coverage. Because a woman working at Hobby Lobby now can’t get health care coverage for certain contraceptives, not because she’s against them, but because her employer is.
How exactly is that respecting her religious freedoms?
Takei also points out religion is a way many conservatives have tried justifying discrimination against homosexuals. These “religious freedom” bills that essentially give businesses the right to deny service to homosexuals based on their religious beliefs.
The bottom line is, religion has no place in government or in business. If someone wants to express their religious views to others, they need to start a church – not a for-profit corporation.