The Supremes Tackle Birth Control

pffft THE war...duh

/rolls eyes

IMO, you're a deviant sex freak ***, no offense or anything.

Julie got hosed with 'My Fair Lady'!

Somewhat appropriate...

Honestly, you would be correct.

:D

i have been actively involved with regards to gay marriage and women's rights for a long time. for someone who whines so much about people typecasting you, you do an awful lot of it yourself. individual rights and civil liberties are the foundation of conservatism.

I've been selling sugar pills as birth control for years.

There was a story about a guy that switched his girlfriends birth control pills. That was me.


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/09/fla-man-admits-secretly-giving-girlfriend-abortion-pill/

http://youtu.be/uWtXd_yRllA?t=1h26m1s


Bah.. cant display videos with specific time marks.

TOPICALLY RELEVANT POST INCOMING
But the entire point of incorporation is to create an entity that is wholly separate from the individuals. How is the infusion of religion into a for-profit corporation's identity necessary to its ability to obtain profits? Hobby Lobby and that other one are peddling craft materials and cabinets and not anything that could be construed as inherently religious. I get the concept of corporate personhood endowing some rights, but does it actually need a religion?

The people suing the government seem to want all the benefits of incorporation plus all the benefits afforded to individuals. How can that be seen as a good thing?

After reading this thread im happy I dont live nor want to visit any part of America.

We're happy you're not here too! win win.

Its all good as id probably go all Godzilla on the lot of you lulz.

I used to make jokes about the Cult of the Holy Sperm.

Then they stopped being funny.

a couple hundred years ago you guys were dying to come here...

Sure sure... We'd be sitting here laughing at you doing whatever you consider "going godzilla" on the "lot" of us...

Maybe not, but it's a question worth asking given the state of the law leading up to this case. I mean, you could plausibly argue the ability to hold and espouse religious views are a necessary extension of corporate speech rights regardless of whether any public interest is furthered by that ability.

You act as if it's only the religious people in major corporations that do this. Businesses get involved in politics and make stands on issues all the time, even ones whose business models have nothing to do with the issues they stand behind.

Yup in our empire days we spread around the world like a disease lol.

/em turns into a huge radioactive lizard and heads over the pond.

See you in a bit lol.

On another note why so serious?

Not that this sort of thing ever matters in these kinds of debates because actually citing the Bible and its records of Yeshua's teachings get conveniently ignored when they interfere with the horseshit being peddled fallaciously in his name, but I never got a strong impression that Christianity is particularly pro-business. I mean, the US was founded on the separation of religion from government and the Bible tells us to render unto Caesar and God their specific dues, so it sounds like both secular and Christian teaching are indicating a distinct separation between the two. I'm sure the Epistles had some obscure comment to make about something related to business, but Yeshua himself told people to focus on doing good and let their actions speak on their behalf, in between decrying the hypocrites and turning over the moneylenders gathered in the Temple.

It just seems to me that anyone claiming to be Christian can follow it up by claiming whatever nonsense they want in spite of having basically no justification in their holy writ. Even if Yeshua cared about abortifacients and fetuses (and there's no evidence he did -- actually, there's more than a little to suggest that doing things like getting married and having kids was something he found mildly objectionable), I doubt that more than 1 in 100,000 protesters could even attempt to cite a passage explaining why their religion allows them to ignore secular authority.

And actually, to prove my previous point, here's a list of businesses in Oregon that support pro-choice actions!

http://www.orfrh.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/NaralShopperGuideFINAL.pdf

But hey, let's not freak out about businesses taking stances until they bring Jesus into it.

This horse is playing with a ball. Your argument is invalid.

Except this isn't about a corporation's ability to engage in activism, it's about the ability of a corporation to ignore governmental authority based on its perceived religious rights. If Hobby Lobby wanted to donate to anti-abortion organizations, I don't believe there would be any legal ramifications to that.

They can and they do.

Its **** like that which makes me want to start a thread on theology.

Why would anyone freak out about an auction?

Do you have any idea how stupid you look posting a PDF that is an auction pamphlet citing sponsoring business, in regards to your point defending privately owned corporations suing the federal government on the platform of religious freedoms in order to circumnavigate regulations?

An auction and a lawsuit are two very different things.

Good point. Which is exactly why nobody cared when Chick-fil-A made a stance on a different issue. Oh wait....

That's why I specified legal ramifications. Violating the law is different from just pissing off the public.

The companies mentioned in that pdf didn't make public statements about their stance like "Chick-fil-A" did in the Baptist Press.

You don't really help your cause by making uninformed comments.

The whole point of my posting was in response to Pleebo's statement:

I simply was trying to show that individuals viewpoints on political issues become infused into company identity quite often (without regards to profit), and not just on religious matters.

I'm not sure if there's a specific legal term for it, but I think we're using the word 'infuse' in different contexts. I think you're trying to point out that companies can become associated with social, political, or religious stances, which, yeah, sure they can, but I'm talking about an actual transfer of those beliefs to the corporation itself where those beliefs go beyond the point of association and become part of its legal identity.

What's the point of transferring those beliefs to a legal entity like a corporation other than to skirt regulations that its individual members find objectionable or inconvenient?