I remember you making certain claims about city living and similar so I inquired per your credibility by asking vague questions about the size of your municipality which you interpreted as me trying to figure out what size shoes you wear and how to best kill your mother. You're a paranoid lunatic with schizophrenic delusions.
There ya go again.
And no the discussion was about the difficulty of getting out of the inner cities when you are born into poverty there; and also that Democrats preside over every single one of the top 10 impoverished cities in America. I said then and believe now this is exactly what Democrats want, a culture of dependency inside cities, densely populated vote farm for their Democratic masters.
I know what the discussion was about, you twerp. And when you made such a big deal about how awful cities were, I asked how big a municipality you lived in and you launched into an "omigawd stop trying to stalk me bro" diatribe. Because that's a convenient dodge away from admitting the obvious truth that, as usual, contradicts your point.
No it was more than that but it's OK buddy. Discussing your projections is not entertaining me or anyone else that reads this.
Four pages and no one has detailed exactly how a corporation, like Hobby Lobby, can have religious beliefs. Any takers?
Because corporations are organizations of people (corporations are people). There is judicial precedent on this matter.
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?
Why is the line drawn at profit? Why are nonprofits that handle immense amounts of money and hold large influence any different because they don't make a profit per se?
I didn't really mean to imply a line there. I mostly put that in there so Kingmissthepoint couldn't nitpick again.
Non-profits aren't exempt unless they're inherently religious (churches and such), in which case religious identity is inseparable from their purpose. This isn't applicable to the type of corporation Hobby Lobby actually is, i.e. a for-profit whose purpose is to sell crafting goods. The fact that their stakeholders are religious doesn't transfer those beliefs to their business unless they would like to change to a non-profit organization with an expressly stated religious purpose.
I am not missing the point, it is a serious question that I don't get. Nonprofits can employ hundreds of people that don't all necessarily share the religious beliefs of the owners; and the religious beliefs themselves do not have to have anything to do with the purpose of the corporation. Why does profit make the difference?
Because Hobby Lobby and cabinet-maker people want to have it all. They want the legal protections of a for-profit corporation AND the religious freedoms afforded to individuals and some non-profits. They don't get both.
....
Telling a Catholic church that it has to provide abortifacients under its employee compensation plan is interfering with an inherently religious institution. Telling a crafting store that it has to comply with the law is not.
But they AREN'T abortifacants. The owners of the stock in that closely held corporation BELIEVE they are.
Eh, whatever, that wasn't the point I was making, Chanti.
And, just based on the HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE actions I see in this and many other threads, is anyone rapidly starting to wonder if the two loudest neocon hyper-"conservative" trolls are sockpuppets of the same person?
Not same person but I have a video of me and King walking into the liberal den that is the ah P&R forums. And I know exactly how every discussion is going to end up.
YouTube Video Placeholder
And calling it now and I won't even argue this with you King. It is not up for debate. I am Romy.
....
Telling a Catholic church that it has to provide abortifacients under its employee compensation plan is interfering with an inherently religious institution. Telling a crafting store that it has to comply with the law is not.
But they AREN'T abortifacants. The owners of the stock in that closely held corporation BELIEVE they are.
What's sad is that you think anyone opposing you is automatically a liberal, as though that's some kind of damning insult. It doesn't matter that half of what you argue against has historically been supported by conservatives and, by literal definition, is conservative (as in, it preserves the rule of the Constitution and legal precedent).
I'm going to assume you hit puberty some time after Carter left office, so you have had very limited access to what conservatism was before it was co-opted by and uttered trashed by the Religious Right. For that matter, you seem to have some grasp of what far-left liberalism looks like but cannot seem to see how far from that current Democrats are. It's like you need to live in the partisan fantasy that funds the 24-hour "news" machines because reality is too multi-colored and frustrating.
Keeping religion and religious exceptionalism out of government is something a proper conservative would uphold, in case I was being unclear. It's basic Cons-law. Permitting religion to have a say in government is actually a traditionally liberal sort of thing.
Eh, whatever, that wasn't the point I was making, Chanti.
And, just based on the HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE actions I see in this and many other threads, is anyone rapidly starting to wonder if the two loudest neocon hyper-"conservative" trolls are sockpuppets of the same person?
I was thinking Fone and King were the same person lol. I mean no disrespect by that btw, its just something that popped in my head like 3-5 pages ago.
Oh and in response to Amandarius, I was 5 twenty years ago. Although, when I became aware of the world around me, maybe 17 or 18, it seemed like common sense that all people should be treated equally.
Yeah yeah you're soooooo certain. You've been creeping on people and stalking them in real life for the last 10-20yrs so that you can say that with such certainty.
Cause everyone you objectify as the opposition is certainty fickle about their morals, that advocating equality for all is merely a trend.
If you hadn't been stalking everyone on this forum, so you can say such things about posters with such certainty; I'd say:
"You don't get out much do you?"
edit: I think he knows you're not Charlie Baker.
double edit: I don't see how Sparthosx is correcting Jassik when he is directly addressing you. Notice he's quoting and responding to you not Jassik.
Yes and in his post everything he said was the exact opposite of Jassik's claim that everyone opposing gay marriage is a bigot. Stop being so literal. To the other taunts that made up the rest of your post, I'll just quote you about you.
Well he did just admit his modus operandi in P&R is to troll.
Lolwut, when did I CLAIM that everyone opposing gay marriage is a bigot? I gave the definition of Bigotry and an example. Oppose it all you want, the defining characteristic of bigotry is INTOLERANCE, not opposition.
Also, you don't know anything about my personal activism or community work. Go fly a kite.
Lolwut, when did I CLAIM that everyone opposing gay marriage is a bigot? I gave the definition of Bigotry and an example. Oppose it all you want, the defining characteristic of bigotry is INTOLERANCE, not opposition.
Can you go into that a bit further? It seems like intolerance is the new buzzword for opposition, and I'd like to know how you believe someone can go about opposing gay marriage without being intolerant.
Lolwut, when did I CLAIM that everyone opposing gay marriage is a bigot? I gave the definition of Bigotry and an example. Oppose it all you want, the defining characteristic of bigotry is INTOLERANCE, not opposition.
Can you go into that a bit further? It seems like intolerance is the new buzzword for opposition, and I'd like to know how you believe someone can go about opposing gay marriage without being intolerant.
I'm going by actual definitions, not the way the words are used in pop culture. You can be opposed to an idea without attempting to disadvantage people on the other side. I'm personally opposed to many things, but I never have actively worked to take away anyone's rights. It's mostly in how you approach differing ideals. I don't have a problem with people observing their religious beliefs so long as it doesn't trample any else's rights and I'm strongly opposed to any group or person being afforded advantage based on their religious beliefs (at least from a legislative standpoint).
Lolwut, when did I CLAIM that everyone opposing gay marriage is a bigot? I gave the definition of Bigotry and an example. Oppose it all you want, the defining characteristic of bigotry is INTOLERANCE, not opposition.
Can you go into that a bit further? It seems like intolerance is the new buzzword for opposition, and I'd like to know how you believe someone can go about opposing gay marriage without being intolerant.
I'm going by actual definitions, not the way the words are used in pop culture. You can be opposed to an idea without attempting to disadvantage people on the other side. I'm personally opposed to many things, but I never have actively worked to take away anyone's rights. It's mostly in how you approach differing ideals. I don't have a problem with people observing their religious beliefs so long as it doesn't trample any else's rights and I'm strongly opposed to any group or person being afforded advantage based on their religious beliefs (at least from a legislative standpoint).
I don't know if that answers your question.
Sort of. But if a person's opposition revolves around a position that denies a person of something that he or she views as a "right", then wouldn't doing anything at all to endorse the said position "disadvantage the people on the other side" and be viewed as intolerant?
I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm just genuinely curious how someone can be expected to endorse their view against gay marriage, for example, without being immediately labeled as intolerant. If something is newly labeled as a "right" but wasn't before, suddenly anyone in opposition is expected to shut up, accept it, or automatically become an intolerant bigot?
Lolwut, when did I CLAIM that everyone opposing gay marriage is a bigot? I gave the definition of Bigotry and an example. Oppose it all you want, the defining characteristic of bigotry is INTOLERANCE, not opposition.
Can you go into that a bit further? It seems like intolerance is the new buzzword for opposition, and I'd like to know how you believe someone can go about opposing gay marriage without being intolerant.
I'm going by actual definitions, not the way the words are used in pop culture. You can be opposed to an idea without attempting to disadvantage people on the other side. I'm personally opposed to many things, but I never have actively worked to take away anyone's rights. It's mostly in how you approach differing ideals. I don't have a problem with people observing their religious beliefs so long as it doesn't trample any else's rights and I'm strongly opposed to any group or person being afforded advantage based on their religious beliefs (at least from a legislative standpoint).
I don't know if that answers your question.
Sort of. But if a person's opposition revolves around a position that denies a person of something that he or she views as a "right", then wouldn't doing anything at all to endorse the said position "disadvantage the people on the other side" and be viewed as intolerant?
I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm just genuinely curious how someone can be expected to endorse their view against gay marriage, for example, without being immediately labeled as intolerant. If something is newly labeled as a "right" but wasn't before, suddenly anyone in opposition is expected to shut up, accept it, or automatically become an intolerant bigot?
As a hypothetical, let's say I'm opposed to gay marriage. I think that marriage is between a man and woman, period. I can choose to keep my beliefs and not associate with gay people, etc, but let people live their lives the way they choose. I could still vote for candidates that share my view, etc. I would be opposed and tolerant.
If I were opposed to gay marriage and also actively trying to have marriage legally defined as man/woman via picketing, petitioning, donating to or participating in an interest group, that would be opposed and intolerant.
In/tolerance being the key, you can disagree without trying to disadvantage others. However, I agree that people with controversial or classic views are almost always labeled as bigots or intolerant regardless of whether they actually are.
....
Sort of. But if a person's opposition revolves around a position that denies a person of something that he or she views as a "right", then wouldn't doing anything at all to endorse the said position "disadvantage the people on the other side" and be viewed as intolerant? ....
Waitafrickingminuet.
If marriage gives rights and privileges unavailable to the unmarried its an equal rights thing. The Supremes said so.
*** hell, this isn't a difficult concept. Don't agree with gay marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex. See how that affects only yourself? Burden others with that same belief by actively trying to deny them marriage shifts that belief into intolerance. I don't think anyone here would argue for denying you your beliefs, but things would get prickly if you wanted to place your beliefs onto others given that two men or two women getting married places zero burden on your existence.
The problem with gay marriage as an example though is that any reason given against the issue boils down to 'gay couples are different' and we inevitably head into bigotry territory.
*** hell, this isn't a difficult concept. Don't agree with gay marriage then don't marry someone of the same sex. See how that affects only yourself? Burden others with that same belief by actively trying to deny them marriage shifts that belief into intolerance. I don't think anyone here would argue for denying you your beliefs, but things would get prickly if you wanted to place your beliefs onto others given that two men or two women getting married places zero burden on your existence.
The problem with gay marriage as an example though is that any reason given against the issue boils down to 'gay couples are different' and we inevitably head into bigotry territory.
Calm thyself, I'm not arguing against gay marriage. I'm arguing against the stupidity that says one side should have to keep their opinion to themselves or be labeled as intolerant bigots while the other side gets to be as vocal as they wish.
I get that but putting other pronouns in there instead of 'you' made it read weird to me.
It still remains a bad example to latch onto since all the counter arguments are devoid of logic and steeped in bigotry. Of course no one wants to hear it. No one wants to hear about racial supremacy, Antisemitism, or misogyny either. You can certainly still advocate such issues openly, but at this point it would be silly to get offended about being called a bigot over it. Discrimination against LGBTs is rapidly reaching that same point.
I see your point, but I just think it's a sleazy tactic. No pros or cons in the discussion, just "It's their right! How dare you think otherwise!" Let's discuss and study the sociological effects on society in general. Maybe the psychological effects on children. There might be no ill effects whatsoever, but screw that. It's their right! The same could be said for a number of other stances that the left traditionally holds.
The court is reviewing provisions of the Affordable Care Act requiring for-profit employers of a certain size to offer insurance benefits for birth control and other reproductive health services without a co-pay.
At issue is whether certain companies can refuse to do so on the sincere claim it would violate their owners' long-established personal beliefs.
The problem as I see it. like many religious beliefs this one is something demonstrably false. They believe the IUD and morning after pills are abortifacants. They are not. But it IS a sincere religious belief.
“I have never heard Hobby Lobby or any other corporation, I could be wrong, or any other boss complain that Viagra is covered in many insurance plans, practically all of them, or other kinds of things, you know, for men, which I won’t go into
As NARAL president Ilyse Hogue explained to Bee during the segment, Medicare has spent $172 million on penis pumps over the last five years, and no one seems to have a problem with that.
