Page 9 of 134 FirstFirst ... 45678910111213141959109 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 2675

Thread: SCOTUS decisions

  1. #161
    So the practical end result here is the government pays for these employers' portion of the four types of birth control challenged?

  2. #162
    Historically Competitive
    Wrangor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Mississippi Delta
    Posts
    12,409
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    Yeah like that impenetrable wall between church and state.
    Like a broken condom. Just how impenetrable has that wall been? Isn't this case further proof of that? You think any other religion would get this result? Not a chance. Christianity is protected because it has always been protected. You can argue linguistic intent, but the proof is in the pudding.

  3. #163
    Historically Competitive
    Wrangor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Mississippi Delta
    Posts
    12,409
    Quote Originally Posted by BeachBumDeac View Post
    Why didn't the founding fathers spell it out if they wanted Christians to have stronger protections? It's not like those dudes didn't understand the power of words
    Can't answer that. Why did our founding fathers include several references to God/Creator/Divine Protection in the Declaration of Independence?

  4. #164
    Wrangor woooooooooooooooooooooorld

  5. #165
    Quote Originally Posted by Wrangor View Post
    Can't answer that. Why did our founding fathers include several references to God/Creator/Divine Protection in the Declaration of Independence?
    Because the Declaration of Independence wasn't a governing document for the country they were founding? And they knew that?

  6. #166
    Quote Originally Posted by RChildress107 View Post
    The fact that you compared it to wedding photographers who discriminate against gay people demonstrates the flaw with that argument. The same reasoning would apply to a challenge against laws preventing a corporation from firing homosexuals.
    I explicitly said I oppose discrimination against gays, but my point is that HL isn't the only workplace in many, if any, communities in America and that homophobic photographer, caters, and bakeries don't have a monopoly on weddings. Not every company offers the same benefits. HL didn't offer these benefits before and they won't offer them in the future. Employees are free to work where they want and therefore can make informed decisions. Why would anyone work someplace or hire services from someone who didn't share their own values if there were multiple options?

  7. #167
    Declaration of Independence ='s Constitution?
    When in doubt, rub one out -BiffTannen

  8. #168
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    69,146
    Quote Originally Posted by bigdoublezero View Post
    Wrangor woooooooooooooooooooooorld
    BDZ, better watch out....Wrangor will neg you just for using his name. He told me he was going to that to me every I use his name. OOOOOOOOOOOOOH

  9. #169
    Quote Originally Posted by FuckmouthedRube View Post
    I explicitly said I oppose discrimination against gays, but my point is that HL isn't the only workplace in many, if any, communities in America and that homophobic photographer, caters, and bakeries don't have a monopoly on weddings. Not every company offers the same benefits. HL didn't offer these benefits before and they won't offer them in the future. Employees are free to work where they want and therefore can make informed decisions. Why would anyone work someplace or hire services from someone who didn't share their own values if there were multiple options?
    Should all companies/people provide their values so that all employees/customers can make an informed decisions?
    When in doubt, rub one out -BiffTannen

  10. #170
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by FuckmouthedRube View Post
    I explicitly said I oppose discrimination against gays, but my point is that HL isn't the only workplace in many, if any, communities in America and that homophobic photographer, caters, and bakeries don't have a monopoly on weddings. Not every company offers the same benefits. HL didn't offer these benefits before and they won't offer them in the future. Employees are free to work where they want and therefore can make informed decisions. Why would anyone work someplace or hire services from someone who didn't share their own values if there were multiple options?
    Because there aren't multiple options? For some I'm sure the choice is work at HL or don't work at all. It's a legitimate question to ask why people would choose to work in a hostile workplace, it's just not a legitimate question in determining the legality of HL being required to provide coverage.

  11. #171
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Wrangor View Post
    Like a broken condom. Just how impenetrable has that wall been? Isn't this case further proof of that? You think any other religion would get this result? Not a chance. Christianity is protected because it has always been protected. You can argue linguistic intent, but the proof is in the pudding.
    And you think this is a good thing?

  12. #172
    Quote Originally Posted by Wrangor View Post
    Like a broken condom. Just how impenetrable has that wall been? Isn't this case further proof of that? You think any other religion would get this result? Not a chance. Christianity is protected because it has always been protected. You can argue linguistic intent, but the proof is in the pudding.
    Are you advocating for this position or merely stating that this is the way the law acts?

  13. #173
    If there's a benefit I value and my employer doesn't offer it, I look for another employer. If I were gay and hunting for caters, bakers, and photographers, and some were homophobic I wouldn't hire them, but I'd make sure their views were publicized on Yelp and Emily's List. When I lived in Richmond, I shopped at Ukrop's even though they didn't sell beer and weren't open on Sundays. If they had been donating to anti-gay causes, that would have been a deal breaker. Unless somebody has an absolute monopoly, they're way better off avoiding social issues that limit their labor and customer base. Mississippi adopted the same anti-gay business laws that that crackpot Jan Brewer vetoed in Arizona. It's not like Intel or the Super Bowl were ever going to be held in MS, but businesses are putting decals in their windows acknowledging they don't discriminate against gays. May cost them some conservative customers, but it's the better move for the long haul.

  14. #174
    The kind of people looking for jobs at Hobby Lobby aren't exactly in the position to be super selective about their options.

  15. #175
    The decision doesn't really bother me that much except for the point Wrangor actually is making, there should be no protection of Christian values over others and that is how this case went. Also I think they should of wrote in a hypocrite rule, if you are going to claim Christian values then for whatever religion you are claiming the deciding factor can be an arbitrator representative said religion. You are only exempt for as long as you keep said Christian values, you shouldn't pick and choose, so enjoy no divorces in your family Hobby Lobby amongst other things.

  16. #176
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by FuckmouthedRube View Post
    If there's a benefit I value and my employer doesn't offer it, I look for another employer. If I were gay and hunting for caters, bakers, and photographers, and some were homophobic I wouldn't hire them, but I'd make sure their views were publicized on Yelp and Emily's List. When I lived in Richmond, I shopped at Ukrop's even though they didn't sell beer and weren't open on Sundays. If they had been donating to anti-gay causes, that would have been a deal breaker. Unless somebody has an absolute monopoly, they're way better off avoiding social issues that limit their labor and customer base. Mississippi adopted the same anti-gay business laws that that crackpot Jan Brewer vetoed in Arizona. It's not like Intel or the Super Bowl were ever going to be held in MS, but businesses are putting decals in their windows acknowledging they don't discriminate against gays. May cost them some conservative customers, but it's the better move for the long haul.
    That's great. Doesn't really have a bearing or connection with the Court's decision though.

  17. #177
    People working at Hobby Lobby probably don't just have jobs lined up where they can afford to jump ship. Either way it seems the government will cover these types of contraceptives correct?

  18. #178
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    69,146
    You act like it's so easy for everyone to get a decent job. That's ridiculous.

    This decision goes along with CU in expanding the rights of corporations. It's ludicrous and dangerous.

  19. #179
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by ThinkingWithMyDeac View Post
    The decision doesn't really bother me that much except for the point Wrangor actually is making, there should be no protection of Christian values over others and that is how this case went. Also I think they should of wrote in a hypocrite rule, if you are going to claim Christian values then for whatever religion you are claiming the deciding factor can be an arbitrator representative said religion. You are only exempt for as long as you keep said Christian values, you shouldn't pick and choose, so enjoy no divorces in your family Hobby Lobby amongst other things.
    That's not how this case went at all. You can argue hypothetically that the burden/interest analysis would have been different for non-Christian religious values but it's hard to conclude that the Court is promoting Christian values above all others based on this opinion.

  20. #180
    The King of Kong Billy Mitchell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fun Spot, USA
    Posts
    1,159
    oh good rj is back

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •