Hobby Lobby

[DeruIsLove]

Go.

[Anichek]

Go.

Jesus crafts.

Closed on Sunday.

No gays can work there, because Jesus.

Continue.

[DeruIsLove]

Pays Atheist Chinese children who will abort/kill girl babies, to make their products.
Wants to refuse to cover contraception via insurance for US employees.

[Estolcles]

Hobby Lobby: FUll legal right to be bigoted assmonkeys.

[toosweet]

Hobby Lobby for Class R shoppers

[Gaffin 7.0]

http://i62.tinypic.com/11uxq8g.gif

[abacab-101]

Pays Atheist Chinese children who will abort/kill girl babies, to make their products.
Wants to refuse to cover contraception via insurance for US employees.

Cause it's not about religion, so there is no hypocrisy; just outright deception.

This might be new to you but, religious freedom is a 1st amendment issue and highly protected; so lawyers working for Hobby Lobby in an attempt to stop the Government from sucking out their profits via healthcare mandates utilized the freedom of religion clause in the Constitutional to essentially duck responsibility.

If I were a CEO and I was worth $6M annually, I'd use everything in my legal arsenal to keep profits high and the IRS from raping my yachts and mansions.


tl;dr

corporate fat-cats use religion to ignore insurance mandates.

[DeruIsLove]

I agree, however the key to take a tyrant down is to first decrease the number of supporters. Best way to do that is to make the holes in the deception as visibledas possible.

[bigshowtime]

I love how all the proles complain about the same shit, making excuses for there shitty quality of life and dead end jobs

[Ahldagor]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

where does it say that a mandate of medical coverage for contraceptives is an infringement upon Hobby Lobby's religious practice?

[DeruIsLove]

where does it say that a mandate of medical coverage for contraceptives is an infringement upon Hobby Lobby's religious practice?

It doesn't, that's the whole point. Their argument is more ridiculous than the "war on Christmas" cry babies. As far as they're concerned Obama is force feeding women birth control.

[Estolcles]

I agree, however the key to take a tyrant down is to first decrease the number of supporters. Best way to do that is to make the holes in the deception as visible as possible.

Thus why I'm glad more and more people are seeing how worthless and shitty Obama is.

But that's not the point of this thread...

[DeruIsLove]

Thus why I'm glad more and more people are seeing how worthless and shitty Obama is.

But that's not the point of this thread...

Can we agree that the real problem is congress?

[Gaffin 7.0]

who cares

[Estolcles]

Can we agree that the real problem is congress?

THey're also part of the problem. As is the Senate.

[DeruIsLove]

The Senate is part of Congress. :p

[heartbrand]

I don't think you have to believe in god to find abortion, at least in some forms, a negative thing. For example I don't think many people here would approve of aborting a viable third tremester fetus. The question is just where do you draw the line.

[Glenzig]

Why don't they just let their employees decide what coverage they want? Sad thing is that they seem like a pretty good company to work for.

[DeruIsLove]

I don't think you have to believe in god to find abortion, at least in some forms, a negative thing. For example I don't think many people here would approve of aborting a viable third tremester fetus. The question is just where do you draw the line.

Birth control and the morning after pill are not abortion.

[Glenzig]

Birth control and the morning after pill are not abortion.

Well, birth control certainly isn't since it prevents you from getting pregnant in the first place. The morning after pill is a different beast all together though.

[DeruIsLove]

Well, birth control certainly isn't since it prevents you from getting pregnant in the first place. The morning after pill is a different beast all together though.

Only if you are making an appeal to ignorance. Implantation of the Zygote (note not a fetus, won't be for two months) takes place 10 days after fertilization, the morning after pill prevents the Zygote from implanting in the first place. It's by definition not an abortion.

[Estolcles]

The Senate is part of Congress. :p

My point is that all 3 branches of Gov't are to blame for this hell our country is in right now.

[Glenzig]

Only if you are making an appeal to ignorance. Implantation of the Zygote (note not a fetus, won't be for two months) takes place 10 days after fertilization, the morning after pill prevents the Zygote from implanting in the first place. It's by definition not an abortion.

Well first off, I didn't say it was an abortion. That doesn't mean that it isn't a termination of a pregnancy. Just because it can't be legally defined as an abortion doesn't mean its above reproach. After all, if you weren't desperate to end the only known result of a fertilized egg, then why would you take it?

[DeruIsLove]

My point is that all 3 branches of Gov't are to blame for this hell our country is in right now.

Oh you meant the supreme court then?

[Estolcles]

Oh you meant the supreme court then?

Yeah.

I haven't toked up in 3 weeks. My brain has been failing me lately. :p

[DeruIsLove]

Well first off, I didn't say it was an abortion. That doesn't mean that it isn't a termination of a pregnancy. Just because it can't be legally defined as an abortion doesn't mean its above reproach. After all, if you weren't desperate to end the only known result of a fertilized egg, then why would you take it?

Desperation implies as well as assumes a lot. Just like to point out that you might want to rephrase things if you ever encounter a rape survivor.

Also pregnancy can result in many things including but not limited to miscarriage and death of the host. A full term fetus is not the "Only known result of a fertilized egg". You are once again trying to excuse ignorance.

[DeruIsLove]

Yeah.

I haven't toked up in 3 weeks. My brain has been failing me lately. :p

K. Wasn't trying to poke fun, just making sure we're on the same page. ;)

[Dragonsblood1987]

Cause it's not about religion, so there is no hypocrisy; just outright deception.

This might be new to you but, religious freedom is a 1st amendment issue and highly protected; so lawyers working for Hobby Lobby in an attempt to stop the Government from sucking out their profits via healthcare mandates utilized the freedom of religion clause in the Constitutional to essentially duck responsibility.

If I were a CEO and I was worth $6M annually, I'd use everything in my legal arsenal to keep profits high and the IRS from raping my yachts and mansions.


tl;dr

corporate fat-cats use religion to ignore insurance mandates.

Its funny because jesus was a communist according to the mythology.

[Glenzig]

Desperation implies as well as assumes a lot. Just like to point out that you might want to rephrase things if you ever encounter a rape survivor.

Also pregnancy can result in many things including but not limited to miscarriage and death of the host. A full term fetus is not the "Only known result of a fertilized egg". You are once again trying to excuse ignorance.

Killing the baby doesn't turn back time and unrape the victim. Why create a second victim of the crime?

Sure pregnancies can go wrong and end in miscarriage, or in extreme circumstances, death of the mother, death of the baby, or both. How does that change the fact that a fertilized egg will result in a pregnancy?

[Dragonsblood1987]

My point is that all 3 branches of Gov't are to blame for this hell our country is in right now.

Indeed. its all due to capitalism, too. everyones fucking everyone for the sake of a few more dollars on top of their millions, and theyve basically taken the wheel by giving themselves absolute power. we need a good government reboot. just turn all current politicians, lawyers, and justices into fertilizer to grow food, and become something like a communist/socialist country with a very heavy dose of nationalism.


http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view/478742/fight-club-explosion-o.gif

[Estolcles]

Killing the baby doesn't turn back time and unrape the victim. Why create a second victim of the crime?

Sure pregnancies can go wrong and end in miscarriage, or in extreme circumstances, death of the mother, death of the baby, or both. How does that change the fact that a fertilized egg will result in a pregnancy?

What's your take on incest birth then?

[Dragonsblood1987]

Killing the baby doesn't turn back time and unrape the victim. Why create a second victim of the crime?

Sure pregnancies can go wrong and end in miscarriage, or in extreme circumstances, death of the mother, death of the baby, or both. How does that change the fact that a fertilized egg will result in a pregnancy?

Lol well the republican faggots in congress will only care about the kid up until its born anyway so why have a child that literally no one wants? is terminating a a handful of cells that hasnt yet gained consciousness worse than dealing with some hood rat piece of shit for however long it takes them to get murdered?

[Glenzig]

What's your take on incest birth then?

The same as my take on all birth.

[DeruIsLove]

Killing the baby doesn't turn back time and unrape the victim. Why create a second victim of the crime?
First it's not a "baby". Second is insult to injury to force a woman to carry her rapists baby to term. It's her choice. End of story.
Sure pregnancies can go wrong and end in miscarriage, or in extreme circumstances, death of the mother, death of the baby, or both. How does that change the fact that a fertilized egg may result in a pregnancy?
Fixed.
Please stop implying what will happen in situations that have multiple possibilities.

[Glenzig]

First it's not a "baby". Second is insult to injury to force a woman to carry her rapists baby to term. It's her choice. End of story.

Fixed.
Please stop implying what will happen in situations that have multiple possibilities.

Absolutely its her choice. I never said it wasn't. My question was, why create a second victim? I'm not saying people shouldn't have the choice, but that doesn't mean that the choice is always correct either.

So what happens when an egg is fertilized and uninhibited? That doesn't result in a pregnancy?

[DeruIsLove]

Absolutely its her choice. I never said it wasn't. My question was, why create a second victim? I'm not saying people shouldn't have the choice, but that doesn't mean that the choice is always correct either.
Who is this "second victim"?
So what happens when an egg is fertilized and uninhibited? That doesn't result in a pregnancy?

Not always, no.
Do you even biology?

[Glenzig]

Who is this "second victim"?


Not always, no.
Do you even biology?

Yeah I'm sure you don't know what I'm talking about. And yes I know about biology just fine. To that point, if it wasn't a greater rather than a lesser chance of pregnancy, why even take the pill? You're arguing in the realm of if and maybes when all of us posting here are the result of a fertilized egg inside of our mothers.

[LulzSect]

http://rs109.pbsrc.com/albums/n76/Built2Drive/My%20Crap/PedobearPeekLeft.png~320x480

[Ahldagor]

birth control baby here. any others?

[Laugher]

Hobby Lobby for Class R shoppers

Lol p good

[DeruIsLove]

Yeah I'm sure you don't know what I'm talking about. And yes I know about biology just fine. To that point, if it wasn't a greater rather than a lesser chance of pregnancy, why even take the pill? You're arguing in the realm of if and maybes when all of us posting here are the result of a fertilized egg inside of our mothers.

You still haven't explained to me who you think this second victim is.

[Ahldagor]

You still haven't explained to me who you think this second victim is.

don't show a lack of knowledge of both sides of the debate

[DeruIsLove]

don't show a lack of knowledge of both sides of the debate

I'm just trying to confirm if he's going to make another claim that a zygote is a fetus or a "baby". Since its not. This is a fact.

[LulzSect]

You're a dumb faggot. This is a fact.

[Estolcles]

The same as my take on all birth.

So you would rather a kid be born with genetic deformities in a situation that is USUALLY (not always) from rape, and grow up with unknown number of problems, than a simple morning after pill to keep that from happening.

THat's pretty fucked up. That's just damning a kid to a living hell.

[Glenzig]

So you would rather a kid be born with genetic deformities in a situation that is USUALLY (not always) from rape, and grow up with unknown number of problems, than a simple morning after pill to keep that from happening.

THat's pretty fucked up. That's just damning a kid to a living hell.

You can call it what you want, but a life is a life.

[Glenzig]

I'm just trying to confirm if he's going to make another claim that a zygote is a fetus or a "baby". Since its not. This is a fact.

Fetuses and babies come from Zygotes. Connect the dots.

[Frieza_Prexus]

So you would rather a kid be born with genetic deformities in a situation that is USUALLY (not always) from rape, and grow up with unknown number of problems, than a simple morning after pill to keep that from happening.

THat's pretty fucked up. That's just damning a kid to a living hell.

So, do you walk up to disabled people and ask them if they want a bullet?

[DeruIsLove]

Fetuses and babies come from Zygotes. Connect the dots.
Zygotes come from sperm and eggs. Gonna connect the dots and tell me menstruation and masturbation are murder too? :rolleyes:
So, do you walk up to disabled people and ask them if they want a bullet?

I've met my fair share of disabled people who say they would of rather not been born. So there's that...

[DeruIsLove]

Funny seeing how it's Ramadan during which women aren't allowed to menstruate.

Oh thee of Abrahamic faith...

[Estolcles]

So, do you walk up to disabled people and ask them if they want a bullet?

If assisted suicide was legal, I'd would assist.

[Estolcles]

Funny seeing how it's Ramadan during which women aren't allowed to menstruate.

Oh thee of Abrahamic faith...

Islam is the religion of peace and love. So sayeth most Islamic terrorists.

[Glenzig]

Zygotes come from sperm and eggs. Gonna connect the dots and tell me menstruation and masturbation are murder too? :rolleyes:


I've met my fair share of disabled people who say they would of rather not been born. So there's that...

As strawman arguments go, yours are some of the worst.

[Frieza_Prexus]

If assisted suicide was legal, I'd would assist.

Key word "assist." No one can make the determination as to whether or not a life is worth living but the person living it.

[DeruIsLove]

As strawman arguments go, yours are some of the worst.

Thank you for noticing a ridiculous place to draw the line. Now explain to the class how yours is significantly less so.

[Estolcles]

Key word "assist." No one can make the determination as to whether or not a life is worth living but the person living it.

Explain that to the doctors that support termination of an embryo when they notice it has something really wrong with it. ((I'm with the docs on that call, btw.))

[Kekephee]

Key word "assist." No one can make the determination as to whether or not a life is worth living but the person living it.


Are parents authorized to make life or death decisions on behalf of their children? Is there a difference between a child on life support having the plug pulled with their parents' authorization and the termination of a fetus? Is there a difference between, in the case of the plan B pill, fertilization being blocked so it never occurs and strangling a 1 year old/10 year old/32 year old to death?


I say yes, but if there was a black and white answer, there wouldn't be an argument

[Glenzig]

Thank you for noticing a ridiculous place to draw the line. Now explain to the class how yours is significantly less so.

You do realize that having a menstrual cycle is what allows a woman to become fertile and produce eggs right?

[bktroost]

What do you call people who make it their hobby to lobby against Hobby Lobby?

[Frieza_Prexus]

Explain that to the doctors that support termination of an embryo when they notice it has something really wrong with it. ((I'm with the docs on that call, btw.))

It's the exact same thing we just went over. Why is it that we can say a child with X disability should be terminated, but an adult with the same or similar problem should not? I don't want the conversation to derail into the "when does life begin" debate given that this is, ostensibly, about Hobby Lobby, so I'll simply say reinforce my position that once a being achieves person-hood, his or her rights to self-determination fully vest and should be protected from termination. Otherwise, it's no different than culling the weak from the herd.

Are parents authorized to make life or death decisions on behalf of their children?

Parents are authorized to make decisions on behalf of their child to further the best interests of the child. Death is (or should) almost always be not in the interests of the child. The only exception being, as you mentioned, life-support cases where there is no reasonable chance of recovery which then makes the situation one of triage and not termination.

[Kekephee]

Parents are authorized to make decisions on behalf of their child to further the best interests of the child. Death is (or should) almost always be not in the interests of the child. The only exception being, as you mentioned, life-support cases where there is no reasonable chance of recovery which then makes the situation one of triage and not termination.

I can think of a few other exceptions. The world is a tremendously shitty place and there's a strong argument to be made against bringing a life into it in general, but if that's not good enough we can talk about poverty or overall quality of life living with diseases such as ectodactyly, down's syndrome, whatever you think the worst disease to live with would be that doesn't directly harm the health of the child but guarantees a terrible life. This is why it's a grey area and simply stating "a parent shouldn't get to make that decision" doesn't work: to someone like me, given that I view the world itself as being more or less a terrible disease that ensures a lifetime of misery, and therefore would have an easier time rationalizing to myself the termination of a healthy fetus, the addition of some horrible disease that wouldn't prove fatal but would just make things exponentially worse really cinches it. For you, obviously, that doesn't hold true; the question then becomes, why do you get to decide and I don't? Why can't I make that decision for my kid? Why do you get to tell me it's not "right"? Isn't that my business?


And since the answer invariably is "absolutely, it is none of your business to make that decision for me," doesn't that mean my employer, my insurance company, and the government also don't get to?

[Kekephee]

I can think of a few other exceptions. The world is a tremendously shitty place and there's a strong argument to be made against bringing a life into it in general, but if that's not good enough we can talk about poverty or overall quality of life living with diseases such as ectodactyly, down's syndrome, whatever you think the worst disease to live with would be that doesn't directly harm the health of the child but guarantees a terrible life. This is why it's a grey area and simply stating "a parent shouldn't get to make that decision" doesn't work: to someone like me, given that I view the world itself as being more or less a terrible disease that ensures a lifetime of misery, and therefore would have an easier time rationalizing to myself the termination of a healthy fetus, the addition of some horrible disease that wouldn't prove fatal but would just make things exponentially worse really cinches it. For you, obviously, that doesn't hold true; the question then becomes, why do you get to decide and I don't? Why can't I make that decision for my kid? Why do you get to tell me it's not "right"? Isn't that my business?



And since the answer invariably is "absolutely, it is none of your business to make that decision for me," doesn't that mean my employer, my insurance company, and the government also don't get to?

Addendum: Your answer will probably be "you can decide for yourself, but not for your baby," to which I respond (and this is also a response to your earlier point about achieving personhood) that a fetus will not be capable of making that decision for, oh, let's say twenty years. Twenty seems like a good age for a person to have a right to really make a good decision about whether or not they want to be alive; obviously a toddler doesn't have the cognitive capability, a child doesn't have the life experience, a teenager is a confused mess of hormones and is not rational or developed enough mentally but thinks they are. These things even out around twenty five, that's when the brain's ability to make decisions is fully developed, let's go with 25.

Personally, I will not subject a living thing to 25 years of misery because someone told me I didn't have a "right" to make a judgment call on their behalf. But obviously not everyone agrees with that, which brings us back to, none of anyone's business but mine and the life for which I am responsible (the kid)

[Kekephee]

I guess I confused the issue a little bit. This kind of became about abortion when it should have been about Hobby Lobby.


So the big question is, under what circumstances does my boss get to dictate, based on his religious beliefs, how I live my life? (It's already been said that this isn't actually a religious issue, the company is just finding an excuse to not spend money, but for the sake of argument.)

[Frieza_Prexus]

You can make whatever decisions you want for yourself. There is no right to end the existence of a third party. You don't get to make the call because no one can. You're basically framing the argument as if children were property. Parents are guardians of their children not owners.

To address your addendum: you're essentially justifying the killing of any mental incompetent. Mom's got Alzheimer's? Don't worry; I have a gun. You may think there should be a right to do so. Many do, but no amount of gymnastics can divorce the act from its definition. You are morally justifying the death of people whose existence you personally find inconvenient. No one can make the determination about the worthiness of a life but the one living it.

[Estolcles]

a child doesn't have the life experience

I was once in a mental hospital in a wing with other teenagers (when I was a teen) because I was extremely depressed, and almost suicidal. In the ajoining wing was an area loaded with little kids, like 10 years old and younger, that were there for the same thing.

Nothing is as disturbing (and I look at a lot of gore porn, so I know) as watching a 5 year old scream about wanting to die, wanting to kill themselves, and then actually see them sneak into the nurse's area, and wrap a telephone cord around their neck tight enough that had a nurse not noticed and found him shortly thereafter, they would have succeeded in their goal.

It's pretty fucked up.

[Dragonsblood1987]

You were institutionalized for being almost suicidal?

[Frieza_Prexus]

I guess I confused the issue a little bit. This kind of became about abortion when it should have been about Hobby Lobby.


So the big question is, under what circumstances does my boss get to dictate, based on his religious beliefs, how I live my life? (It's already been said that this isn't actually a religious issue, the company is just finding an excuse to not spend money, but for the sake of argument.)

Bosses do it all the time. Drug tests, codes of conduct, etc. The main point of their argument is generally that they are being coerced by the law to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs. This is generally something that is strongly protected under the Constitution. These are sincerely held beliefs. I am personal friends with a litigator working on this case. This is an absolutly sincere battle; it is not about the money.

[Pokesan]

hey did anybody say eat the rich yet?

eat the rich

[Estolcles]

You were institutionalized for being almost suicidal?

Multiple times.

Extreme depression is a bitch. Even now, on 3 different mental meds, I still have daily thoughts at random times of suicide. Only reason I don't kill myself is my religious belief in Hell.

But I don't fear death. I welcome it.

[Dragonsblood1987]

I refuse to take prescription meds for depression. You shouldn't be ingesting all those fucked up chemicals. Smoke some weed if you're depressed. At worst, it'll make you apathetic in stead of depressed. I opened up my forearm once when I was 17 and ended up passing out from blood loss, but I guess it clotted before organs started shutting down. That sort of put shit into perspective for me, and while my depression is still present and is mostly existential, I haven't been suicidal since. Any reasonable person fears death, but they don't let that fear paralyze them. Some people need a little push to see it though, like almost bleeding out did for me.

[phacemeltar]

hicks

[DeruIsLove]

You do realize that having a menstrual cycle is what allows a woman to become fertile and produce eggs right?

I just asked you if you even biology, you said you did, you were clearly lying.

A woman will not menstruate if she is pregnant (it's typically the first sign of pregnancy) menstruation is the egg not being fertilized.

So yes, connect your dots.

[Estolcles]

I refuse to take prescription meds for depression. You shouldn't be ingesting all those fucked up chemicals. Smoke some weed if you're depressed. At worst, it'll make you apathetic in stead of depressed. I opened up my forearm once when I was 17 and ended up passing out from blood loss, but I guess it clotted before organs started shutting down. That sort of put shit into perspective for me, and while my depression is still present and is mostly existential, I haven't been suicidal since. Any reasonable person fears death, but they don't let that fear paralyze them. Some people need a little push to see it though, like almost bleeding out did for me.

I know how I am when I'm off the meds, and, honestly, I'd rather ingest all the fucked up chemicals than be like I am when I'm off them. I smoke weed (not as regular anymore due to lack of funds), and on the rare occasion I'm without my meds, weed is my go-to fix to get me past the rough patches. It really helps a lot of my health issues, does weed. The bad part is that I have a pretty strong mental addiction to weed too, so that's not exactly a good thing either.

[Estolcles]

I just asked you if you even biology, you said you did, you were clearly lying.

A woman will not menstruate if she is pregnant (it's typically the first sign of pregnancy) menstruation is the egg not being fertilized.

So yes, connect your dots.

Well, they also won't menstruate if they're extremely physically active (like swimmers and weight lifters). But that's beside the point.

[Pokesan]

I cast level 9 Summon-Rellapse

own these pathetic virgins my dark lord

[Estolcles]

I cast level 9 Summon-Rellapse

own these pathetic virgins my dark lord

He's too busy on a meth high to post. Try again later.

[Kekephee]

Bosses do it all the time. Drug tests, codes of conduct, etc. The main point of their argument is generally that they are being coerced by the law to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs. This is generally something that is strongly protected under the Constitution. These are sincerely held beliefs. I am personal friends with a litigator working on this case. This is an absolutly sincere battle; it is not about the money.


You know, I live in Houston, too. I'm curious about your thoughts regarding the Equal Rights Ordinance that just passed here. Do you think employers should be able to fire their employees for being gay? I ask because it's the same thing, and I'm curious to see what you think about that.

[Estolcles]

You know, I live in Houston, too. I'm curious about your thoughts regarding the Equal Rights Ordinance that just passed here. Do you think employers should be able to fire their employees for being gay? I ask because it's the same thing, and I'm curious to see what you think about that.

They have the right to fire employees for being gay in Texas?

*adds Texas to a list of places he hates*

[Kekephee]

They have the right to fire employees for being gay in Texas?

*adds Texas to a list of places he hates*

Not in Houston! At least not since last month!

[Estolcles]

Not in Houston! At least not since last month!

Oh, so they made it so they CAN'T fire people for being gay?

*takes Texas off the list*

[Kekephee]

I mean if I'm being serious it's a little more complicated than that. But it kind of isn't, if you catch my drift.


The REAL meat of the issue over here is, people think this is a law about whether or not transgenders are allowed to use public bathrooms

[Kekephee]

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/assets_c/2014/05/Bn8_3jqCMAE7wB5-thumb-560x420.jpg

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2014/05/grace_church_obviously_uneasy.php

[Estolcles]

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/assets_c/2014/05/Bn8_3jqCMAE7wB5-thumb-560x420.jpg

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2014/05/grace_church_obviously_uneasy.php

Transgenders: Treated as the bastard, red headed, unwanted, middle child of the LGBT movement.

[Pokesan]

There's lots of other reasons to hate texas, don't give up so easily

[myriverse]

Companies are not people and should be afforded NO constitutional rights.

[Frieza_Prexus]

You know, I live in Houston, too. I'm curious about your thoughts regarding the Equal Rights Ordinance that just passed here. Do you think employers should be able to fire their employees for being gay?

That's a loaded question.

But, generally, yes. It might be because the owner is a huge jerk, or it might be because the hiring organization has a specific moral code. Whatever those reasons, it should generally be the owner's prerogative to make these decisions. Is there a benefit of outlawing this practice? Yes, you protect gays from bosses being asses and firing them just because of that with no backing reason. Is there a down side? Absolutely, such laws tend to tie the hands of organizations that do possess legitimate codes of conduct and would have a good reason to not hire that person.

Such laws often have exceptions built in similar to the old "bona fide occupational qualification" standard, but such laws often have poor execution of their exceptions that, in my opinion, often make them not worth the negatives.

Does the law allow people to be fired for being gay? Yes, in many places. Should it? Probably yes because of what it means to the freedom of association of business owners with sincerely held beliefs.

[Bazia]

A business owner should be able to fire whoever anyone they want for any reason they want. It's their business after all.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Alito is holding the opinion. Looks very good for Hobby Lobby.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Hobby Lobby wins. Closely held corporations cannot be required to provide contraception coverage.

[Faron]

Sitting in a dentist waiting room being entertained by 10 pages of nonsense opinions of people who live in an old game.

[Dragonsblood1987]

You know, I live in Houston, too. I'm curious about your thoughts regarding the Equal Rights Ordinance that just passed here. Do you think employers should be able to fire their employees for being gay? I ask because it's the same thing, and I'm curious to see what you think about that.

All those good wholesome traditional marriage bible thumpers are just scared they're gay. not sure why theyre scared of that though. i guess they dont want teh sanctity of their 4th marriage to be devalued. if they think god created everything and all that bullshit, where did being gay come from?

[Dragonsblood1987]

And personally, i think worrying about who other people are fucking is more befitting of the phrase "acting like a faggot" than actually being gay.

[Glenzig]

Sitting in a dentist waiting room being entertained by 10 pages of nonsense opinions of people who live in an old game.

Its awesome and sad at the same time isn't it?

[Dragonsblood1987]

http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a08/a08.gif

[p99soundsok]

Companies are not people and should be afforded NO constitutional rights.

fortunately, dim-witted fools such as yourself cannot make such things happen.

[Kekephee]

That's a loaded question.

But, generally, yes. It might be because the owner is a huge jerk, or it might be because the hiring organization has a specific moral code. Whatever those reasons, it should generally be the owner's prerogative to make these decisions. Is there a benefit of outlawing this practice? Yes, you protect gays from bosses being asses and firing them just because of that with no backing reason. Is there a down side? Absolutely, such laws tend to tie the hands of organizations that do possess legitimate codes of conduct and would have a good reason to not hire that person.

Such laws often have exceptions built in similar to the old "bona fide occupational qualification" standard, but such laws often have poor execution of their exceptions that, in my opinion, often make them not worth the negatives.

Does the law allow people to be fired for being gay? Yes, in many places. Should it? Probably yes because of what it means to the freedom of association of business owners with sincerely held beliefs.


I wasn't intending it as a loaded question. I'm not going to be like, LOOK EVERYBODY, XASTEN'S A HOMOPHOBE HE SAID GAYS SHOULD BE FIRED. I really just wanted to know if your opinion was that employer powers stretched that far. Now I know they do. I disagree entirely, but these are opinions and they're allowed to not be the same.

[Heebo]

Does the law allow people to be fired for being gay? Yes, in many places. Should it? Probably yes because of what it means to the freedom of association of business owners with sincerely held beliefs.

This is worse than anything else I've read on these forums because I know you actually believe it.

[Faron]

This is worse than anything else I've read on these forums because I know you actually believe it.

So you don't think the owner of a business should be able to choose who they employ for whatever reason they want?

[Heebo]

So you don't think the owner of a business should be able to choose who they employ for whatever reason they want?

Choosing to terminate an employee you've already hired, presumably because they were the most qualified candidate for the job, because of any reason that doesn't impact their ability to continue to perform their job at a high level is medieval.

[Glenzig]

Choosing to terminate an employee you've already hired, presumably because they were the most qualified candidate for the job, because of any reason that doesn't impact their ability to continue to perform their job at a high level is medieval.

I agree with that.

[Kekephee]

Choosing to terminate an employee you've already hired, presumably because they were the most qualified candidate for the job, because of any reason that doesn't impact their ability to continue to perform their job at a high level is medieval.

It's also a really terrible way to run your business, but I guess some people are ok with running their business into the ground over something like this.

[Heebo]

Xasten is choosing to err on the side of corporate rights rather than individual freedom which is simply wrong. It's just disheartening to hear from somebody these forums regard as an enlightened intellectual.

[DeruIsLove]

So the Supreme court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby and against the establishment clauses in the first amendment. This is literally the worst legal precedent set since the likes of "separate but equal" and "don't ask don't tell".

I hope people who supported this ridiculousness end up needing a blood transfusion and work for Jehovah's witnesses, or need mental care and work for a scientologist, or want vaccinations for their kids only to find out they work for Christian Scientists, etc, etc.

You know what? Fuck it! Let's just skip the middle man and stop paying women altogether, the Bible/Qu'ran, etc. have women in a lower tier than slaves after all...

[Frieza_Prexus]

Choosing to terminate an employee you've already hired, presumably because they were the most qualified candidate for the job, because of any reason that doesn't impact their ability to continue to perform their job at a high level is medieval.

It generally is a bad way to run your business. I hired a lesbian a few months ago, and I'll be giving her a raise soon. She's done quite well. Firing her for that reason would be absolutely medieval on my part, and completely unfair to her.

It's not about firing teh gays. It's about a freedom of association. There is no such thing as a law that only restricts the bad guys. Every restriction will also impact those who perhaps have legitimate reasons for their actions. Should a marriage counseling center be forced to retain an employee who is great at his job but is secretly cheating on his spouse? Should a church be forced to retain a pastor who has privately disavowed his religion to the deacons, but can still give fantastic sermons? Should male oriented strip clubs be forced to retain a female stripper who as begun a FtM transition? Yes, there is good intent behind laws that protect people from unfair discrimination, but there are also consequence that exist with the implementation of those laws. Could I live with a law protecting gays from unfair termination? Yes. In fact, I do. I live in Houston.

However, the question is what is the best policy? I believe that the best policy is one that most preserves the freedom of association even if it means some people get to be troglodytes. The first line of defense for people should be society and culture. Tolerance of homosexuals is a cultural battle that they are clearly winning. Laws should be brought to the table as a last resort.

[Glenzig]

So the Supreme court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby and against the establishment clauses in the first amendment. This is literally the worst legal precedent set since the likes of "separate but equal" and "don't ask don't tell".

I hope people who supported this ridiculousness end up needing a blood transfusion and work for Jehovah's witnesses, or need mental care and work for a scientologist, or want vaccinations for their kids only to find out they work for Christian Scientists, etc, etc.

You know what? Fuck it! Let's just skip the middle man and stop paying women altogether, the Bible/Qu'ran, etc. have women in a lower tier than slaves after all...

Lots of hate speech in this post.

[Tewaz]

So the Supreme court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby and against the establishment clauses in the first amendment. This is literally the worst legal precedent set since the likes of "separate but equal" and "don't ask don't tell".

I hope people who supported this ridiculousness end up needing a blood transfusion and work for Jehovah's witnesses, or need mental care and work for a scientologist, or want vaccinations for their kids only to find out they work for Christian Scientists, etc, etc.

You know what? Fuck it! Let's just skip the middle man and stop paying women altogether, the Bible/Qu'ran, etc. have women in a lower tier than slaves after all...

Did you read the majority opinion? The decision was made only for specific birth control medications/devices that "terminate the embryo". They wrote that the ruling will not affect any other items such as blood transfusions.

[Ele]

This is what happens when you make something that used to be a perk of working at certain establishments and make it a requirement everywhere.

[Lavahorn]

Hobby Lobby will still get my business, or rather my wife will because I don't need anything from there...this is my Hobby.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Xasten is choosing to err on the side of corporate rights rather than individual freedom which is simply wrong. It's just disheartening to hear from somebody these forums regard as an enlightened intellectual.

I want to reiterate something.

Because someone's going to take what I've said and run with it, I don't hate gays, and firing them just because you don't like them is absolutely wrong morally and ethically. I cannot say this strongly enough. Yes, my faith (and by extension me) disapproves of unrepentant homosexual activity, but they are still people too and just as deserving of respect and a fair chance as every other human being alive.

My stance is not about gays specifically. It's about a broader policy. When you are forcing people to act, it is good policy to use the "least restrictive means possible" to solve a problem that cannot be solved any other way. The Supreme Court uses this test constantly, and it was a part of the Hobby Lobby ruling. It is wrong to fire people on Christmas Eve simply because the timing brings you devious pleasure, yet we allow it to happen. There are all sorts of behaviors that are despicable yet legal.

If gays were so strongly persecuted that they were having difficulty finding employment as a group, then yes, such legislation would probably be necessary! However, right now this is not the case. What you then have is a solution looking for a problem. It is good policy to solve real problems that cannot be solved through alternate means.

[DeruIsLove]

Lots of hate speech in this post.
Facts are not hate speech.
Did you read the majority opinion? The decision was made only for specific birth control medications/devices that "terminate the embryo". They wrote that the ruling will not affect any other items such as blood transfusions.

Read up on it, that's not the law, that's how hobby lobby is going to take advantage of it. The actual Law gives no such specifics.

Also worth noting, hobby lobby is still in full support of covering Viagra via insurance.

[p99soundsok]

err on the side of corporate rights rather than individual freedom

what do you think the owner of the business is? he isn't an individual with rights? gtfo of here

[DeruIsLove]

I want to reiterate something.

Because someone's going to take what I've said and run with it, I don't hate gays, and firing them just because you don't like them is absolutely wrong morally and ethically. I cannot say this strongly enough. Yes, my faith (and by extension me) disapproves of unrepentant homosexual activity, but they are still people too and just as deserving of respect and a fair chance as every other human being alive.

My stance is not about gays specifically. It's about a broader policy. When you are forcing people to act, it is good policy to use the "least restrictive means possible" to solve a problem that cannot be solved any other way. The Supreme Court uses this test constantly, and it was a part of the Hobby Lobby ruling. It is wrong to fire people on Christmas Eve simply because the timing brings you devious pleasure, yet we allow it to happen. There are all sorts of behaviors that are despicable yet legal.

If gays were so strongly persecuted that they were having difficulty finding employment as a group, then yes, such legislation would probably be necessary! However, right now this is not the case. What you then have is a solution looking for a problem. It is good policy to solve real problems that cannot be solved through alternate means.

Do you wear polyester blends? Eat shellfish? Do you work on Sundays? (I'm not being facetious)

[DeruIsLove]

what do you think the owner of the business is? he isn't an individual with rights? gtfo of here

Congratulations, now if you are the owner of a company your rights can trump those of the ones below you! Freedumb

[Glenzig]

Facts are not hate speech.

You should probably try posting some then. That was a rant about personal preference, not fact.

[p99soundsok]

Congratulations, now if you are the owner of a company your rights can trump those of the ones below you! Freedumb

and those below the owner are enslaved at the place of business? they are unable to look for other jobs and then leave said oppressive job? good gawd you people are useless

[Frieza_Prexus]

Do you wear polyester blends? Eat shellfish? Do you work on Sundays? (I'm not being facetious)

Absolutely. I do not live under the old covenant, thus I am not bound by the law of ceremony.

Congratulations, now if you are the owner of a company your rights can trump those of the ones below you! Freedumb

The employee has the right to quit at any time, and the employer has the right to fire at any time. These are co-equal rights. No one is trumping anything.

[Heebo]

Should a marriage counseling center be forced to retain an employee who is great at his job but is secretly cheating on his spouse?
Does it interfere with her ability to continue to perform her job at a high level? If not, she should absolutely keep her job.
Should a church be forced to retain a pastor who has privately disavowed his religion to the deacons, but can still give fantastic sermons?
Does it interfere with his ability to continue to perform her job at a high level? As I'm sure you're aware a pastors duties extend beyond giving "fantastic" sermons.
Should male oriented strip clubs be forced to retain a female stripper who as begun a FtM transition?
Does it interfere with his ability to continue to perform her job at a high level? In most cases, yes it would and the employer should have the freedom to terminate the employee for professional reasons.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Does it interfere with her ability to continue to perform her job at a high level? If not, she should absolutely keep her job.

Does it interfere with his ability to continue to perform her job at a high level? As I'm sure you're aware a pastors duties extend beyond giving "fantastic" sermons.

Does it interfere with his ability to continue to perform her job at a high level? In most cases, yes it would and the employer should have the freedom to terminate the employee for professional reasons.

This is where a statute will begin to fray. The marriage counseling service might tout their service which includes only counselors who uphold a strict moral code. Consumers will consider the premium of morally upright counselors worth it, and the cheating counselor cannot be retained. Churches will likely be in violation of their religion if they allow a secretly apostate, but otherwise great, pastor to continue preaching.

No matter how you slice it, services can often be altered in such a way to circumvent any meaning in the law. This means that increasingly restrictive means must be employed to close the gaps. The tightening of these laws will increasingly impinge upon legitimate businesses as in my above example.

To turn a question back at you, should all despicable behaviors be outlawed? Certainly, there is a situation where such legislation would be necessary. However, like all things in law, we must balance the rights of the innocent and legitimate against the harmful actions of others. Our society is not at a point, in my view, where such laws are necessary. Again, it is, at this time, a solution in search of a problem.

The best policy at this moment is to preserve the freedom of association despite the morally repugnant actions it might allow. Unpopular speech and actions are defended because of what it means to not defend them.

[Faron]

Choosing to terminate an employee you've already hired, presumably because they were the most qualified candidate for the job, because of any reason that doesn't impact their ability to continue to perform their job at a high level is medieval.

Not what I asked but ok.

[p99soundsok]

To turn a question back at you, should all despicable behaviors be outlawed? Certainly, there is a situation where such legislation would be necessary. However, like all things in law, we must balance the rights of the innocent and legitimate against the harmful actions of others. Our society is not at a point, in my view, where such laws are necessary. Again, it is, at this time, a solution in search of a problem.

The best policy at this moment is to preserve the freedom of association despite the morally repugnant actions it might allow. Unpopular speech and actions are defended because of what it means to not defend them.


too many people are so anti-corporate because they are butthurt and impoverished. they simply cannot contemplate our ability to freedom and being able to choose whatever job we want and quite whatever job we want.

[Lune]

Do you wear polyester blends? Eat shellfish? Do you work on Sundays? (I'm not being facetious)

Absolutely. I do not live under the old covenant, thus I am not bound by the law of ceremony.

In other words, he has picked and chosen which parts of the Old Testament are able to mesh most conveniently with contemporary western culture.

Why can't you just admit that when Christianity spread to radically different cultures, it was adapted to fit the local customs? Eastern Orthodox for the slavs and greeks, Catholicism for Latin Europe, and Protestantism for the Nords and Germans. Then we get spin like supersessionism, or theology designed to explain why the same words from the same prophet mean different things to different people at different times.

"I don't follow that part of original Christianity, because God told the Israelites to do that, and I'm not an Israelite."

What really boggles my mind is how evangelicals and other protestants can reconcile U.S capitalist culture with Jesus' teachings.

[Ahldagor]

Absolutely. I do not live under the old covenant, thus I am not bound by the law of ceremony.



that doesn't count and ignores the historical origins of christianity.

btw, i agree with you on the ordinance in houston or not revoking employer's rights to fire, but it's in the cases of succinct discrimination ("out of the closet") that the ordinance is designed to protect from. really, if there was a law that protected the privacy of employees and employers equally then there wouldn't be any debate about one's sexuality within the workplace and whether or not that was a valid qualifier for employment. sexual harassment laws already attempt to stem such language, but humans are pretty active sexual creatures regardless of orientation. my main gripe is that employers have the ability and seemingly protected legal right to invade the privacy of their employees and can use the information available to them to make a decision to whether or not that employee is worthy or not to be employed by them when the information isn't relevant to the work required by the position. being homosexual doesn't make a lawyer less of a lawyer. being homosexual doesn't make a cashier at HEB less of a cashier at HEB. i don't really understand why people harp on ad-hominem coupled with sincerity arguments (much like the Nazis did) to ignore the requirements of a job.

[Ravager]

This is why I rolled agnostic. I didn't want to take the faction hits.

[radditsu]

My wife loves it. But she doesn't like the sewing patterns they have. I have never entered one.

[Glenzig]

This is why I rolled agnostic. I didn't want to take the faction hits.

Hahahah. Nice.

[Glenzig]

My wife loves it. But she doesn't like the sewing patterns they have. I have never entered one.

A wife?

[p99soundsok]

step 1: read the constitution
step 2: either you're too fucking dumb to realize how this should be resolved
step 3: or you're smart enough to realize that our country was founded on the basis of personal freedom

[Ahldagor]

step 1: read the constitution
step 2: either you're too fucking dumb to realize how this should be resolved
step 3: or you're smart enough to realize that our country was founded on the basis of personal freedom

USA was founded by litigators who were also smugglers

[p99soundsok]

USA was founded by litigators who were also smugglers

all of the founding fathers were litigators and smugglers? hm. not only are you completely wrong, you are providing content that even if it were true would still not change the meaning of what I said

[Frieza_Prexus]

In other words, he has picked and chosen which parts of the Old Testament are able to mesh most conveniently with contemporary western culture.

Spoilered to reduce the derailing of the main thread.

Framing Supersessionism and similar doctrines as spin does not make them that. They exist as doctrine because they are often reasonable explanations for the now non-binding nature of much of the Levitical law. It may not persuade you, but they generally are a large part of the Christian faith.

Jesus spoke (MATTHEW 15:11), and Paul wrote about this frequently (ROMANS 7:6, for example). Given Christ's record on the subject, I'd say following in his lead on the old covenant is far from intellectually dishonest. Paul directly rebuts the soteriological value of keeping the law (GALATIONS 2:16). Thus, I'm wearing my comfy multi-fiber shirt.

That said, perhaps my interpretation is wrong and I am in sin by not keeping the law. If this is so, then I repent and beg the Father for forgiveness in my ignorance for I "know not what I do," and I throw myself at the feet of Christ.

[DeruIsLove]

You should probably try posting some then. That was a rant about personal preference, not fact.

Isn't that what creationists say when presented with facts? Just ignore them and ask for different ones? Good job!

(My phone browser keeps fucking up quoting so I'm going to have to quintuple post to reply to things)

[DeruIsLove]

and those below the owner are enslaved at the place of business? they are unable to look for other jobs and then leave said oppressive job? good gawd you people are useless

Don't know where you live, but around here there aren't a ton of jobs to go around. Look at how saturated healthcare services are for example.

[DeruIsLove]

Absolutely. I do not live under the old covenant, thus I am not bound by the law of ceremony.



The employee has the right to quit at any time, and the employer has the right to fire at any time. These are co-equal rights. No one is trumping anything.

Others have properly addressed this, your spoiler post doesn't change the fact that you pick and choose what is convenient for you to find sacred. Jesus had literally nothing to say about homosexuals and was clearly anti-capitalist.

As for the first half of your post: see my previous post.

[DeruIsLove]

too many people are so anti-corporate because they are butthurt and impoverished. they simply cannot contemplate our ability to freedom and being able to choose whatever job we want and quite whatever job we want.

Your privilege is showing.

[Glenzig]

Isn't that what creationists say when presented with facts? Just ignore them and ask for different ones? Good job!

(My phone browser keeps fucking up quoting so I'm going to have to quintuple post to reply to things)

Actually that's what all humans do on certain levels. You're certainly not exempt from that.

[bigsykedaddy]

In other words, he has picked and chosen which parts of the Old Testament are able to mesh most conveniently with contemporary western culture.

Why can't you just admit that when Christianity spread to radically different cultures, it was adapted to fit the local customs? Eastern Orthodox for the slavs and greeks, Catholicism for Latin Europe, and Protestantism for the Nords and Germans. Then we get spin like supersessionism, or theology designed to explain why the same words from the same prophet mean different things to different people at different times.

"I don't follow that part of original Christianity, because God told the Israelites to do that, and I'm not an Israelite."

What really boggles my mind is how evangelicals and other protestants can reconcile U.S capitalist culture with Jesus' teachings.


I am not a Christian but I do know a thing or two about how they operate. When Jesus was born and then died on the cross , he fulfilled the old testament bringing in the new law and the new testament in which people were supposed to obey.

[DeruIsLove]

step 1: read the constitution
step 2: either you're too fucking dumb to realize how this should be resolved
step 3: or you're smart enough to realize that our country was founded on the basis of personal freedom

1. Do you even establishment clause bro?
2. Implying it wasn't resolved correctly. You are correct in that implication.
3. Corporations aren't persons. The people they employ however, are.
4. Templates like that are forbidden.

[DeruIsLove]

People say this term in an effort to insult or go against a certain set of people all while enjoying a life using "created" items themselves, interesting how ignorance works sometimes.

Elaborate please. Or you making an appeal?

[Frieza_Prexus]

Others have properly addressed this, your spoiler post doesn't change the fact that you pick and choose what is convenient for you to find sacred. Jesus had literally nothing to say about homosexuals and was clearly anti-capitalist.

As for the first half of your post: see my previous post.

No, others have not satisfactorily explained why it is necessary to impinge upon the freedom of association to outlaw all morally wrong activities.

As to the side conversation:
Regarding theology and convenience, you are completely ignoring any form of reasoned analysis and you're refusing to engage in any attempts to understand the mechanics of salvation and Christian covenants. Using the words "literally" and "clearly" doesn't make up for your dearth of analysis. It certainly is convenient the law works out that way isn't it? It's also convenient that God loves us. It's almost as if things were set up for our benefit.

[Ahldagor]

Spoilered to reduce the derailing of the main thread.

Framing Supersessionism and similar doctrines as spin does not make them that. They exist as doctrine because they are often reasonable explanations for the now non-binding nature of much of the Levitical law. It may not persuade you, but they generally are a large part of the Christian faith.

Jesus spoke (MATTHEW 15:11), and Paul wrote about this frequently (ROMANS 7:6, for example). Given Christ's record on the subject, I'd say following in his lead on the old covenant is far from intellectually dishonest. Paul directly rebuts the soteriological value of keeping the law (GALATIONS 2:16). Thus, I'm wearing my comfy multi-fiber shirt.

That said, perhaps my interpretation is wrong and I am in sin by not keeping the law. If this is so, then I repent and beg the Father for forgiveness in my ignorance for I "know not what I do," and I throw myself at the feet of Christ.

is that in the supreme court's ruling?

[p99soundsok]

Don't know where you live, but around here there aren't a ton of jobs to go around. Look at how saturated healthcare services are for example.

I've lived in many places; there are jobs. if you can't find a job then start going to job fairs. if you have a job you hate, then look for another fucking job. you are much more employable while employed.

Your privilege is showing.

I've never had anything handed to me - from my first POS car that I worked both age 15 and age 16 to afford - to my newly-built house. it was all built due to my hard work and dedication. i have no sympathy for your anger and laziness

[Ahldagor]

I've never had anything handed to me - from my first POS car that I worked both age 15 and age 16 to afford - to my newly-built house. it was all built due to my hard work and dedication. i have no sympathy for your anger and laziness

good for you. what was the car?

[DeruIsLove]

No, others have not satisfactorily explained why it is necessary to impinge upon the freedom of association to outlaw all morally wrong activities.
I sincerely hope that's a joke. And conservatives are the ones who complain about fascism...

As to the side conversation:
Regarding theology and convenience, you are completely ignoring any form of reasoned analysis and you're refusing to engage in any attempts to understand the mechanics of salvation and Christian covenants. Using the words "literally" and "clearly" doesn't make up for your dearth of analysis. It certainly is convenient the law works out that way isn't it? It's also convenient that God loves us. It's almost as if things were set up for our benefit.

Except when something bad or nonsensical happens, then you jump on the "God works in mysterious ways" bandwagon.

[DeruIsLove]

I've lived in many places; there are jobs. if you can't find a job then start going to job fairs. if you have a job you hate, then look for another fucking job. you are much more employable while employed.



I've never had anything handed to me - from my first POS car that I worked both age 15 and age 16 to afford - to my newly-built house. it was all built due to my hard work and dedication. i have no sympathy for your anger and laziness

Your privilege is still showing. Nobody in my area hires peoples under 18 for one...

[Glenzig]

Your privilege is still showing. Nobody in my area hires peoples under 18 for one...

No one? Not one business will hire anyone under 18? Even during the summer break?

[DetroitVelvetSmooth]

Ha. 90% of people that spout about how hard they've worked to get everything they've got are just trying to make themselves feel good. As if the only thing holding back people is laziness. "If everyone were just more like me... hurr durr." You had a place to work on a car when you were 15? Sounds like you are instantly somewhere on the top half of society right there. Also having the free time to play this game at all is pretty damn luxurious. Pad your self esteem elsewhere and check ur privilege har har.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Except when something bad or nonsensical happens, then you jump on the "God works in mysterious ways" bandwagon.

Care to point out where I've done that? Stop trying to put words and actions in my mouth. I understand that you're angry, but that is not license to start making up facts.

Your privilege is still showing. Nobody in my area hires peoples under 18 for one...

Ideas and arguments should be evaluated on their merit and not their source. You're starting to sound like the Tumblr teenagers who try to silence anyone who doesn't share their narrow "poor little me" worldview.

[DeruIsLove]

stuff.

Oh look, you ran out of excuses and decided to resort to ad-hominem attacks. Good job !

[Ele]

Your privilege is still showing. Nobody in my area hires peoples under 18 for one...

Have you offered to mow your neighbors' yards for a few bucks?

[Glenzig]

Oh look, you ran out of excuses and decided to resort to ad-hominem attacks. Good job !

99% of your posts are ad-hominem attacks.

[Lavahorn]

Might have been mentioned already, but Hobby Lobby from what i'm reading will still provide birth control but not plan B, Ella.. and other after conception type pills.

[Frieza_Prexus]

Oh look, you ran out of excuses and decided to resort to ad-hominem attacks. Good job !

No. I compared you to a group of people who cannot argue substantively which is something you seem to be having difficulty with. I have committed no ad-hominem. You, however, do nothing but belittle viewpoints you disagree with. I noticed that you've failed to point out where I've jumped on "God works in mysterious was" bandwagon you so kindly threw me on.

Throughout this thread you've bemoaned people's privilege as if their background somehow changes the worthiness of their arguments. Writing off people's opinions and arguments simply because of their background is far more prejudicial than anything else seen in this thread so far.

Perhaps you should check your privilege?

[Faron]

folks pulling out vocab from last semester's polsci101 class. thread over.

[Lune]

thread ended on page 12 when xasten dropped logic bombs on all the SJW's

[Tiggles]

I didn't read this thread past the first couple posts.

But did Deru lose his job for being gay?

[Funkutron5000]

Every Kagatob post makes me think of this

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lki8hu2q9I1qcqqpjo1_500.jpg

Except, you know, not James Franco levels of attractiveness.

[DeruIsLove]

Have you offered to mow your neighbors' yards for a few bucks?

There are no "yards" in the projects.

[DeruIsLove]

No. I compared you to a group of people who cannot argue substantively which is something you seem to be having difficulty with. I have committed no ad-hominem. You, however, do nothing but belittle viewpoints you disagree with. I noticed that you've failed to point out where I've jumped on "God works in mysterious was" bandwagon you so kindly threw me on.
Have I struck a nerve?

You've yet to deny or provide an alternative about such a stance.
Perhaps you should check your privilege?

I checked my white, male, cisgendered privilege at the door. Why don't you?

[Tewaz]

Breaking news: A Hobby Lobby employee needed one of these pills, so they went and *gasp* bought it. The pill was $50, but the employee was able to afford it because Hobby Lobby pays double minimum wage.

[DeruIsLove]

Hobby Lobby pays double minimum wage.

Not in MA/CT they sure as he'll don't.

[Frieza_Prexus]

You've yet to deny or provide an alternative about such a stance.

You're starting to sound like Glen Beck. "I asked if he's a communist, and he hasn't PROVED he's not, so he must be!" You tried to make me sound like a mystic with nebulous pejoratives (God works in mysterious wayzz teee hee). That's not even relevant. You're upset that I supposedly used an ad-hominiem, yet not only did you use one, you're asking me to rebut it as if my answer to your insult had any bearing on the discussion.

Grow up.

I checked my white, male, cisgendered privilege at the door. Why don't you?

No. Privilege has no bearing on this discussion. It should make no difference if I was born in the ghetto with a crack pipe in my mom's hand or if I was born into a European monarchy. Debate is about the merit of ideas not their origin.

Why can you not grasp that?

[Champion_Standing]

Thread would have been better if it was about scrap booking.

[DeruIsLove]

You're starting to sound like Glen Beck. "I asked if he's a communist, and he hasn't PROVED he's not, so he must be!" You tried to make me sound like a mystic with nebulous pejoratives (God works in mysterious wayzz teee hee). That's not even relevant. You're upset that I supposedly used an ad-hominiem, yet not only did you use one, you're asking me to rebut it as if my answer to your insult had any bearing on the discussion.
I only care about the answer that you still have yet to provide. The rest of your post is worthless rhetoric.


No. Privilege has no bearing on this discussion. It should make no difference if I was born in the ghetto with a crack pipe in my mom's hand or if I was born into a European monarchy. Debate is about the merit of ideas not their origin.

Why can you not grasp that?
It absolutely does in a society as big and fractured as this one. If you want to pretend that everyone is equal and has the same shot at life not only are you deluding yourself, you're also part of the problem.

[Glenzig]

Thread would have been better if it was about scrap booking.

Come on down to Hobby Lobby. We have all of your scrapbooking needs.

[Champion_Standing]

Come on down to Hobby Lobby. We have all of your scrapbooking needs.

I was expecting to open the thread and see an awesome quilt or something that OP made from stuff he got at hobby lobby. Total letdown, 0/5 stars.

[Glenzig]

I only care about the answer that you still have yet to provide. The rest of your post is worthless rhetoric.

You've invented an argument in your head that has nothing to do with the subject of the thread that you started and you're mad that he won't answer?

[Frieza_Prexus]

I only care about the answer that you still have yet to provide. The rest of your post is worthless rhetoric.

What answer is that? That I believe in free will and that most problems are from humans being doofuses? There. You have it.

It absolutely does in a society as big and fractured as this one. If you want to pretend that everyone is equal and has the same shot at life not only are you deluding yourself, you're also part of the problem.

We are debating the merits of government policy. Certainly, people come for disparate backgrounds and that bears consideration into what the policy should be. However, an idea itself should NEVER be evaluated on who gave it. This is what you are doing. It's like saying we should disown calculus because Newton was privileged.

[DeruIsLove]

You've invented an argument in your head that has nothing to do with the subject of the thread that you started and you're mad that he won't answer?

It's my thread. According to today's supreme court decision I can do whatever the fuck I want.

[radditsu]

What answer is that? That I believe in free will and that most problems are from humans being doofuses? There. You have it.



We are debating the merits of government policy. Certainly, people come for disparate backgrounds and that bears consideration into what the policy should be. However, an idea itself should NEVER be evaluated on who gave it. This is what you are doing. It's like saying we should disown calculus because Newton was privileged.

This guy has a brain sometimes.

[Ele]

There are no "yards" in the projects.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. There still plenty of things to try. Now grab a squeegee from the gas station, throw it in a bucket, add a some dish soap, bit of water. Baby, you've got a business going.

[DeruIsLove]

What answer is that? That I believe in free will and that most problems are from humans being doofuses? There. You have it.

So you still view your good as both supremely moral and omnipotent as he sits back watching a child being raped and doesn't do anything about it because he either a. Refuses to or b. Can't.

We are debating the merits of government policy. Certainly, people come for disparate backgrounds and that bears consideration into what the policy should be. However, an idea itself should NEVER be evaluated on who gave it. This is what you are doing. It's like saying we should disown calculus because Newton was privileged.

Bad Strawman. In Newton's time only the privileged had access to good (admittedly subjective) education. And yes, biases should absolutely be considered when ideas are evaluated.

[Rheaume]

Choosing to terminate an employee you've already hired, presumably because they were the most qualified candidate for the job, because of any reason that doesn't impact their ability to continue to perform their job at a high level is medieval.

Brendan Eich called. He said, "hypocrisy, is that you?"

[DeruIsLove]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. There still plenty of things to try. Now grab a squeegee from the gas station, throw it in a bucket, add a some dish soap, bit of water. Baby, you've got a business going.

whoa whoa whoa. When I was ten a kid I knew got brutally beaten and had his money taken from the lemonade stand he tried to set up. What part of inner city didn't you comprehend? More privilege showing.

[Tiggles]

http://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/a/image/1333/06/1333064942541.jpg

[radditsu]

http://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/a/image/1333/06/1333064942541.jpg

[Imslap]

whoa whoa whoa. When I was ten a kid I knew got brutally beaten and had his money taken from the lemonade stand he tried to set up. What part of inner city didn't you comprehend? More privilege showing.

There are no "yards" in the projects.

Tell us again where Elethia was wrong?

[Ele]

whoa whoa whoa. When I was ten a kid I knew got brutally beaten and had his money taken from the lemonade stand he tried to set up. What part of inner city didn't you comprehend? More privilege showing.

so buy a piece and protect yourself

[Frieza_Prexus]

So you still view your good as both supremely moral and omnipotent as he sits back watching a child being raped and doesn't do anything about it because he either a. Refuses to or b. Can't.

Have you never seen The Problem of Evil addressed? Aquinas deal with this hundreds of years ago. Goodness and morality stem from the being who created those concepts, and truly free will enables the perversion of that.

Biases should absolutely be considered when ideas are evaluated.

Biases should be considered in determining 1) HOW a person arrived that a conclusion and 2) what their possible motives might be.

Biases have zero bearing on the merit of a particular argument. 2 + 2 = 4 no matter who says it.

[DeruIsLove]

Tell us again where Elethia was wrong?
Ever heard of a 'stoop'?
so buy a piece and protect yourself

With what money? Welcome to the vicious cycle of poverty.

[DeruIsLove]

Have you never seen The Problem of Evil addressed? Aquinas deal with this hundreds of years ago. Goodness and morality stem from the being who created those concepts, and truly free will enables the perversion of that.

TL;DR God doesn't give a shit about the kid and neither do you.

Biases should be considered in determining 1) HOW a person arrived that a conclusion and 2) what their possible motives might be.

Biases have zero bearing on the merit of a particular argument. 2 + 2 = 4 no matter who says it.
Good to know you consider human lives to be precisely quantifiable objects. Despite that, they are not. A better comparison would be 200-2billion + 200-2billion = 400-4billion no matter who says it.

[Imslap]

Ever heard of a 'stoop'?


With what money? Welcome to the vicious cycle of poverty.

Sounds like you're mad that Hobby Lobby wouldn't pay for your mom's morning after pill

[Faron]

People debating Aquinas now. I was right.

[Ele]

With what money? Welcome to the vicious cycle of poverty.

Unless you are posting from a library, you could get off the forum and sell your computer.

Better yet, you could shift your focus from forum-warrioring to learning to code or repair computers and sell your services online and by word of mouth in your "projects", but that takes self directed effort.

[DeruIsLove]

Unless you are posting from a library, you could get off the forum and sell your computer.

Better yet, you could shift your focus from forum-warrioring to learning to code or repair computers and sell your services online and by word of mouth in your "projects", but that takes self directed effort.

Don't know if you've been paying attention but whatshisface was talking about when he was 15-16 which for me would of been 14 years ago. Ten of those years it took for me to become even slightly financially stable.

[DeruIsLove]

Currently I'm living paycheck to paycheck with one paychecks buffer on average though I need new brakes soon so that's moot. For lower class it's about as stable as I can get unless I luck out again like I did when I landed the job I have today. I both appreciate and respect what little privileges I have.

[DeruIsLove]

Whoever moved the thread: It's NSFW if you read the posts.

[Tiggles]

Whoever moved the thread: It's NSFW if you read the posts.

I had it moved.

It's also offtopic because it's not about fucking Everquest.

[DeruIsLove]

I had it moved.

It's also offtopic because it's not about fucking Everquest.

Shut the fuck up if you aren't going to provide anything to the discussion you pokemon peddling pedophile.

[Glenzig]

Currently I'm living paycheck to paycheck with one paychecks buffer on average though I need new brakes soon so that's moot. For lower class it's about as stable as I can get unless I luck out again like I did when I landed the job I have today. I both appreciate and respect what little privileges I have.

Tell us more please.

[Ele]

Currently I'm living paycheck to paycheck with one paychecks buffer on average though I need new brakes soon so that's moot. For lower class it's about as stable as I can get unless I luck out again like I did when I landed the job I have today. I both appreciate and respect what little privileges I have.

Paycheck to paycheck.

(My phone browser keeps fucking up quoting so I'm going to have to quintuple post to reply to things)

Posting and browsing the forums from a smart phone, and cites a friend getting beat up 20 years ago, so he can't offer services like computer repair, yard mowing, or window washing in the projects to bring in extra money.

[India]

I had it moved.

It's also offtopic because it's not about fucking Everquest.

Stupid excuse
Half the damn threads in RnF aren't about EQ, including a number of yours

[DeruIsLove]

Posting and browsing the forums from a smart phone, and cites a friend getting beat up 20 years ago, so he can't offer services like computer repair, yard mowing, or window washing in the projects to bring in extra money.

I was 23 when I got my first computer. I knew nothing about computers until around that time. Inb4 it's my fault for not prostituting myself.

[Glenzig]

I was 23 when I got my first computer. I knew nothing about computers until around that time. Inb4 it's my fault for not prostituting myself.

I mean we all exchanged sexual favors for our computers right guys? Huh...oh...yeah me either.

[Glenzig]

Stupid excuse
Half the damn threads in RnF aren't about EQ, including a number of yours

Yeah it definitely fits into the rants subsection since the only reason it was ever posted was so Deru could rant against God/religion and tell us all what we believe.

[DeruIsLove]

Yeah it definitely fits into the rants subsection since the only reason it was ever posted was so Deru could rant against God/religion and tell us all what we believe.

I'm not telling you what you believe. I'm explaining to you why it's insane to believe what you do. What you do with that information is up to you.

[MalexandraTL]

i worship cazic thule and fuck you all for not doing the same. i declare jihad against all of you non believers. iksars unite and rise up against the heathen invaders.

[Shannacore]

Sad thread is sad

[DeruIsLove]

20 pages!

[Faron]

pokemon peddling pedophile.

That should be a guild name.

[Glenzig]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. There still plenty of things to try. Now grab a squeegee from the gas station, throw it in a bucket, add a some dish soap, bit of water. Baby, you've got a business going.

This post is Carl Weathers approved!
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQFCM4Pv-gWO8GBPi-i_KEvoKneHyqI9bZVOqcXNjSSdHl40xEWEw

[Ahldagor]

damn thread derailed harder than ever. well done.

kags shut up with the privilege shit because it just makes you sound worse than a buzzword wielding politician drubbing up people's ears for votes. Xasten destroyed you, so take the beating with some dignity.

[DeruIsLove]

Mr.adventure time didn't destroy anything aside from his own credibility. Couldn't even answer a simple question and when he encountered an opposing view exploded in a fit of rhetoric and ad-hominem.

[DeruIsLove]

TL;DR God doesn't give a shit about the kid and neither do you.


Good to know you consider human lives to be precisely quantifiable objects. Despite that, they are not. A better comparison would be 200-2billion + 200-2billion = 400-4billion no matter who says it.

[Daldolma]

This wasn't even a hard case.

RFRA re-established strict scrutiny for any legislation substantially burdening the free exercise of religion, whether or not the law is facially neutral. Forcing a company to provide contraception that is directly opposed to their sincerely held religious beliefs substantially burdens the free exercise of religion. Per RFRA, it is thus subject to strict scrutiny. That's really the end of the game since strict scrutiny is lights out when properly applied, but we can walk through the rhetoric.

The law only survives strict scrutiny if it is narrowly tailored (read: the least restrictive means) to meet a compelling interest. Providing this type of contraception almost definitely doesn't amount to a compelling state interest, but it doesn't even matter. The Court never had to touch that issue because there are a wide variety of less restrictive means available, including those already in use with non-profits.

[Ahldagor]

no, they stopped arguing because you're bullshit spiraled so far out of control that you came off clearly as retarded with enough capacity to use a computer for internet purposes. you're interlocking of ad-hominem argumentation is what i was getting at with,
. i don't really understand why people harp on ad-hominem coupled with sincerity arguments (much like the Nazis did) to ignore the requirements of a job.

that notion also goes to people's argument methods. you're unable to see the forest from the trees or the projects from the stoops (to alter the cliche to a suitable environment for you). have you even read aquinas?

[Ahldagor]

This wasn't even a hard case.

RFRA re-established strict scrutiny for any legislation substantially burdening the free exercise of religion, whether or not the law is facially neutral. Forcing a company to provide contraception that is directly opposed to their sincerely held religious beliefs substantially burdens the free exercise of religion. Per RFRA, it is thus subject to strict scrutiny. That's really the end of the game since strict scrutiny is lights out when properly applied, but we can walk through the rhetoric.

The law only survives strict scrutiny if it is narrowly tailored (read: the least restrictive means) to meet a compelling interest. Providing this type of contraception almost definitely doesn't amount to a compelling state interest, but it doesn't even matter. The Court never had to touch that issue because there are a wide variety of less restrictive means available, including those already in use with non-profits.

hobby lobby isn't opposed to vasectomies nor certain types of contraceptives. they didn't want to have to pay for plan-b, IUD's, and another one. though their policy is rather gender biased, and, on a personal level, it's a privacy thing as well. but that's not what was being argued before the court.

[Daldolma]

hobby lobby isn't opposed to vasectomies nor certain types of contraceptives. they didn't want to have to pay for plan-b, IUD's, and another one. though their policy is rather gender biased, and, on a personal level, it's a privacy thing as well. but that's not what was being argued before the court.

The type of contraception wasn't really the issue. The issue, as stated, was whether forcing Hobby Lobby to provide it substantially burdened the free exercise of religion. Also: whether RFRA applied.

The answers are yes and yes.

RFRA is kind of a dumb law, but it's the law. And, not that it matters, but it was passed nearly unanimously.

[arsenalpow]

Gawker has a nice breakdown of SCJ Ginsburg's dissenting opinion. Since her dissent was 35 pages long it's pretty helpful.

http://gawker.com/a-treasury-of-justice-ginsburgs-real-talk-in-her-hobby-1598003837

[Daldolma]

Ginsburg's dissent may be ideologically appealing depending on your stance, but it is legally inferior. She basically argues that Congress' non-action on the conscience amendment amounts to a disavowal of RFRA, which it obviously doesn't. Ginsburg's interpretation of RFRA swallows its own tail. If the failure of Congress to pass explicit supplemental legislation equated to Congress's intent to supersede RFRA, then RFRA would be meaningless. Congress would be required to pass supplemental legislation for every bill. Ginsburg isn't interpreting -- she's legislating from the bench.

She also brings women's rights into the argument, but that's more of a political appeal than a legal one. Freedom of religion is a fundamental right under SCOTUS doctrine; covered access to contraceptive devices would almost certainly fail that test.

It's funny: people want to blame either the Supreme Court or political conservatives for what they view to be a bad decision, but under the Supreme Court's doctrinal test, Hobby Lobby would have lost (see: Employment Division v. Smith, majority opinion written by the extremely conservative Justice Antonin Scalia). Congress reacted to the SCOTUS doctrine discussed in Smith by passing RFRA, nearly unanimously, with Clinton signing it into law. This wasn't a constitutional case. It was decided under RFRA.

If Congress didn't like RFRA, they could have just repealed it. They still can. Then this case would have to have been brought as a violation of Hobby Lobby's constitutional rights. As a facially neutral law of general applicability, absent invidious discrimination, it would have been subject to rational basis review and upheld. Hobby Lobby would have lost.

[p99soundsok]

good for you. what was the car?

1990 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Laser

[Ahldagor]

1990 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Laser

nice

[Daywolf]

If you like your God, you can keep your God...
Nothing new to see here, just the more to be taken away as you are willing to have it taken away.
...unless you actually sell your cloak and fight for it.
They did this in Europe for years, watch your actual rights dissipate faster than you can blink.

[a_gnoll_pup]

lobby for hobby

confirmed RMT'er