|
Post by #70 on Jul 2, 2014 8:30:38 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jul 2, 2014 8:33:53 GMT -6
The thing is, an IUD can be inserted after sects and will prevent the fertilized egg from developing. This little technicality, despite the leap in logic it requires, is what their objection was based off of. ...which further supports the opinion these people are insane zealots who are incapable of rational behavior. Yet they are allowed to influence federal and state law. Go, figure. I haven't been to a church bince mah second wedding ceremony that we did up in the Dodge for mah family back in 2003, so I ain't a religious zealot by any means. I just think there is a bridge too far when the government passes legislation that these "zealots" claim interferes with the free exercise of their religion. I don't personally have any philosophical or religious objections to abortofacients or gay weddings, but some people do and no matter how silly we think the objections may be, the Constitution does offer some degree of protection to the religious business owner who doesn't want his/her funds diverted to abortofacients or to the devoutly Christian or Muslim photographer who wishes not to attend a religious covenant ceremony involving gay folks. Preventing a tyrannical majority from running roughshod over a group of individuals is the reason we have a constitution and without it, gay folks wouldn't have any right to marry save for in states where the voters approved it.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jul 2, 2014 8:34:13 GMT -6
Significant rule violation.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jul 2, 2014 8:41:28 GMT -6
Whar invisible hand tho?? Right nyah, brah. Don't worry, I didn't shop at hobby lobby, and I for damn sure will make sure that my family never buys from that shitty company ever again.
|
|
|
Post by egadsto on Jul 2, 2014 8:42:18 GMT -6
I haven't been to a church bince mah second wedding ceremony that we did up in the Dodge for mah family back in 2003, so I ain't a religious zealot by any means. I just think there is a bridge too far when the government passes legislation that these "zealots" claim interferes with the free exercise of their religion. I don't personally have any philosophical or religious objections to abortofacients or gay weddings, but some people do and no matter how silly we think the objections may be, the Constitution does offer some degree of protection to the religious business owner who doesn't want his/her funds diverted to abortofacients or to the devoutly Christian or Muslim photographer who wishes not to attend a religious covenant ceremony involving gay folks. Preventing a tyrannical majority from running roughshod over a group of individuals is the reason we have a constitution and without it, gay folks wouldn't have any right to marry save for in states where the voters approved it. is this also why religious institutions are exempt from paying taxes?
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jul 2, 2014 8:45:04 GMT -6
is this also why religious institutions are exempt from paying taxes? Religious institutions are non-profits. Profit is taxed and if you have no profit you are not taxed. Northwestern University doesn't pay taxes, either, and those sumnabitches have damn near $10 billion in their endowment.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jul 2, 2014 8:47:39 GMT -6
Other than the parts about killing people and shit, sure. A Muslim owned business should absolutely have the right to force ugly women to cover themselves in a burqa.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jul 2, 2014 8:50:28 GMT -6
Religious institutions are non-profits. Profit is taxed and if you have no profit you are not taxed. Northwestern University doesn't pay taxes, either, and those sumnabitches have damn near $10 billion in their endowment. NU doesn't pay property tax? Not a penny. So every fucking time they want to buy something in Evanston, there is a major shitstorm because it reduces the property base. That's why they had to build out a giant sector of the Lake in order to get more land because the City wouldn't change the zoning for them to put up a bunch of shit they wanted to build liek 30-40 years ago. Brown University has similar fights with Providence, RI, because the tax base shrinks every time these schools buy privately owned land.
|
|
|
Post by #70 on Jul 2, 2014 8:51:29 GMT -6
Significant rule violation.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Jul 2, 2014 8:56:18 GMT -6
That is a blatant abuse of the Condescending Wonka meme. For one, the dialog is not condescending at all. Second, you can't have 6 fucking lines of dialog in an advice image. Less is always more.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jul 2, 2014 8:56:23 GMT -6
Other than the parts about killing people and shit, sure. A Muslim owned business should absolutely have the right to force ugly women to cover themselves in a burqa. the a la carte approach to religious doctrine? I see. Of course. Just liek there is a bridge too far by assholes like yourself in terms of poo pooing religious freaks, there is liekwise a bridge too far for the religious freaks. Shit liek marrying your 15 year old daughter and taking her as your 12th wife and stoning rape victims are good examples.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jul 2, 2014 8:57:38 GMT -6
The SCOTUS weighed in on the Duck Dynasty debate?
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Jul 2, 2014 8:58:32 GMT -6
the a la carte approach to religious doctrine? I see. Of course. Just liek there is a bridge too far by assholes like yourself in terms of poo pooing religious freaks, there is liekwise a bridge too far for the religious freaks. Shit liek marrying your 15 year old daughter and taking her as your 12th wife and stoning rape victims are good examples. So you can't marry a 15 year old, but what if you incorporate? Can the corporation marry her? Especially if the corporation is under 18? I want to know...for a friend.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Jul 2, 2014 8:59:53 GMT -6
That is a blatant abuse of the Condescending Wonka meme. For one, the dialog is not condescending at all. Second, you can't have 6 fucking lines of dialog in an advice image. Less is always more. take it up with The Internet, boss. It ain't my work. My beef ain't wif you friendo, and I am taking it up with the internet. Frankly, 99% of the shit the SCOTUS does makes no impact on muh life, but butchering memes hits me where it hurts.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jul 2, 2014 9:06:06 GMT -6
Of course. Just liek there is a bridge too far by assholes like yourself in terms of poo pooing religious freaks, there is liekwise a bridge too far for the religious freaks. Shit liek marrying your 15 year old daughter and taking her as your 12th wife and stoning rape victims are good examples. I'm an asshole because I object to zealots and fanatics taking over my federal gov't? I figure such objection makes me a Patriot. Are you saying that Patriots = assholes? Why can't you just support the troops, pinko? No, you're an asshole because you want the government to run totally roughshod over the freaks and zealots without regard to their First Amendment rights. Reasonable stance is freaks and zealots stay the fuck out of your bedroom and you stay the fuck out of activities that compel them to sin. So some gal gets knocked up and wants an abortion flush - fine, she can get one but you can't make the zealots directly fucking pay for it. Seems pretty fair to me.
|
|
|
Post by Master Blaster on Jul 2, 2014 9:27:21 GMT -6
It is dangerous ground to put corporate religious rights over individual religious rights and to allow religious beliefs to be instituted against employees. Pretty fuck ed up actually. SCOTus got this wrong in my humble and meaningless opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Gunner Thompson on Jul 2, 2014 9:31:25 GMT -6
Look who's getting pwned now...
Once again O'Keef's playin chess while the rest of the wacky left on this board plays checkers (save for Chuck who plays with his 'jack in the box' & golfer who plays with his rattle)
|
|
|
Post by egadsto on Jul 2, 2014 9:33:15 GMT -6
Look who's getting pwned now... Once again O'Keef's playin chess while the rest of the wacky left on this board plays checkers (save for Chuck who plays with his 'jack in the box' & golfer who plays with his rattle)
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jul 2, 2014 9:48:33 GMT -6
hyperbole much? I want my fucking gov't to be fair and honest and representative of all legal citizens, and I don't want it to be co-opted by every jerkoff with enough money to influence. No fucks are given by me whether the jerkoff is a religious zealot or a defense subcontractor or the AAJ or any other PAC/special interest group. I'm not an asshole, guy. I'm an idealist. I wonder what the framers would think? Like hell you want the government to be fair and honest and representative of all legal citizens. You want the government to compel people with whom you don't agree to violate their religious principles. This case isn't about the government doing anything itself other than dictating business activities of a private entity with devoutly religious shareholders. I mean, I can't say I'm surprised that someone such as yourself wants to oppress the rights of a discrete and insular minority with whom you disagree. You are now a southerner, after all.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jul 2, 2014 9:51:03 GMT -6
It is dangerous ground to put corporate religious rights over individual religious rights and to allow religious beliefs to be instituted against employees. Pretty fuck ed up actually. SCOTus got this wrong in my humble and meaningless opinion. Blah, blah, blah. You know what's way more dangerous than that? The government concocting a fucking 900 some page bill that they had to vote on before they saw what was inside the bill.
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Jul 2, 2014 9:56:40 GMT -6
hyperbole much? I want my fucking gov't to be fair and honest and representative of all legal citizens, and I don't want it to be co-opted by every jerkoff with enough money to influence. No fucks are given by me whether the jerkoff is a religious zealot or a defense subcontractor or the AAJ or any other PAC/special interest group. I'm not an asshole, guy. I'm an idealist. I wonder what the framers would think? Like hell you want the government to be fair and honest and representative of all legal citizens. You want the government to compel people with whom you don't agree to violate their religious principles. This case isn't about the government doing anything itself other than dictating business activities of a private entity with devoutly religious shareholders. I mean, I can't say I'm surprised that someone such as yourself wants to oppress the rights of a discrete and insular minority with whom you disagree. You are now a southerner, after all. A discreet and insular minority??? We They control the entire federal gubmint and all major corporations in this country, and they are forcing their beliefs on everyone through legislative and judicial activities. Chuck just wants to be free to worship Pan, the Goat god, in the privacy of his outdoor shower stall, but we they are forcing our God right down his throat.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jul 2, 2014 10:07:48 GMT -6
Like hell you want the government to be fair and honest and representative of all legal citizens. You want the government to compel people with whom you don't agree to violate their religious principles. This case isn't about the government doing anything itself other than dictating business activities of a private entity with devoutly religious shareholders. I mean, I can't say I'm surprised that someone such as yourself wants to oppress the rights of a discrete and insular minority with whom you disagree. You are now a southerner, after all. if this is your rabid way of saying that I want full and total separation of church and state, then yeah, I agree SHARIA LAW IS COMIN' NEXT, Y'ALL! IT'LL BE DISGUISED AS CONSERVATIVE XTIANITY, BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE, IT'LL BE SHARIA!! If you were to take the seven tenths of a second it takes to read the first clause of the First Amendment, you would note that it has two elements - a prohibition regarding establishment of religion and the prohibition of interfering with the free exercise of religion. As an atheist zealot, you are obviously familiar only with the Establishment Clause and not the Free Exercise Clause, but both are critically important elements in the separation of church and state. As an atheist zealot, you are unable to see how mandates can interfere with someone's free exercise of religion. Compelled sin, no matter how silly you or I may think it is, does not further the separation of church and state.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jul 2, 2014 10:11:57 GMT -6
Like hell you want the government to be fair and honest and representative of all legal citizens. You want the government to compel people with whom you don't agree to violate their religious principles. This case isn't about the government doing anything itself other than dictating business activities of a private entity with devoutly religious shareholders. I mean, I can't say I'm surprised that someone such as yourself wants to oppress the rights of a discrete and insular minority with whom you disagree. You are now a southerner, after all. A discreet and insular minority??? We They control the entire federal gubmint and all major corporations in this country, and they are forcing their beliefs on everyone through legislative and judicial activities. Chuck just wants to be free to worship Pan, the Goat god, in the privacy of his outdoor shower stall, but we they are forcing our God right down his throat. You start going to Temple or Synagogue?
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Jul 2, 2014 10:19:15 GMT -6
A discreet and insular minority??? We They control the entire federal gubmint and all major corporations in this country, and they are forcing their beliefs on everyone through legislative and judicial activities. Chuck just wants to be free to worship Pan, the Goat god, in the privacy of his outdoor shower stall, but we they are forcing our God right down his throat. You start going to Temple or Synagogue?
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Jul 2, 2014 11:15:57 GMT -6
It is dangerous ground to put corporate religious rights over individual religious rights and to allow religious beliefs to be instituted against employees. Pretty fuck ed up actually. SCOTus got this wrong in my humble and meaningless opinion. Blah, blah, blah. You know what's way more dangerous than that? The government concocting a fucking 900 some page bill that they had to vote on before they saw what was inside the bill. Can you at least explain to me then, in legal reasoning, why a corporation is not separate from an individual and his/her/their beliefs? For instance, one incorporates to protect themselves, legally separate their person, from any liability the business incurs. For instance, if I work at Hobby Lobby and, through negligence of the business owner, the roof collapses on me and makes me a quadriplegic. I am not able to sue the owner of the company for damages, because they are separate from the corporation right? I can sue Hobby Lobby, but I cannot sue the person who owns Hobby Lobby? Honestly, I don't know if I'm correct here, so stop me if I'm wrong. However, if that reasoning is correct, I can only sue Hobby Lobby for the money that they're worth, right? Suppose (this isn't an actual scenario in the HL case, but for argument's sake) the damages I am awarded are greater than the value of the corporation. I am not allowed to then sue the controlling stock owners for additional damages right? Again, because the owners are a distinct legal entity from the corporation as a whole? I ask this because it seems to me that a corporation exists to facilitate commerce. As a separate "person" from the investors, the corporation is extended certain rights the individual is not offered, mainly protection from liability. That is the whole point of a corporation, is it not, to protect investors from losing all of their money? I guess my question is who decides where the individual ends, and the corporation begins? I just don't get it how religious beliefs can be jointly shared by two legal entities, one of which is not a person.
|
|