|
|
|
|
PLEASE NOTE: The Reality TV World Message Boards are filled with desperate
attention-seekers pretending to be one big happy PG/PG13-rated family. Don't
be fooled. Trying to get everyone to agree with you is like herding cats,
but intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other
posters IS required at all times. Jump in and play, and you'll soon find out
how easy it is to fit in, but save your drama for your mama. All members are
encouraged to read the
complete guidelines.
As entertainment critic Roger
Ebert once said, "If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue
with me, correct me--but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way."
|
|
|
"SCOTUS: Corporations may hold and enforce their religious beliefs on others."
 |
|
newsomewayne 9275 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-30-14, 06:26 PM (EST)
 
  |
3. "SCOTUS: Persons who own Corporations may hold and enforce exercise their religious beliefs on others." |
Unlike the POTUS, it seems they actually read the First Amendment.
surfkitten siggie and board shop 2007 NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and assign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks... GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine. (signed) G. Washington
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
Estee 56922 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-30-14, 06:34 PM (EST)
|
4. "RE: SCOTUS: Persons who own Corporations may hold and enforce exercise their religious beliefs on others." |
So if you went to work for a corporation run by an Islamic ownership, you would have no issues with their striking out those portions of your health insurance which didn't fit with sharia law.Scientologists and you're fine with not getting access to antidepressants. The Witnesses and forget about blood transfusions. Any one of the many faiths which will refuse to pay for vaccinations. Something with a Do Not Resuscitate belief built-in has no problem failing to perform CPR on you in the cafeteria. If it's a religion and it's formally recognized, it can use this ruling, Newsome. This. Is. Not. A. Christian. Exclusive. Law. Explain to me how you intend to keep it from being used against you. Because I can think of all sorts of ways. And I? Might enforce a few just for the fun of it. Imagine what's going to happen when you run into someone who believes. By the way, we just took bacon out of the corporate lunchroom. Dietary restrictions, y'know. Religious ones. Feel free to quit.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
newsomewayne 9275 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
06-30-14, 10:53 PM (EST)
|
8. "RE: SCOTUS: Persons who own Corporations may hold and enforce exercise their religious beliefs on others." |
Your premise is completely false, and your question, curiosity or not, is irrelevant.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estee 56922 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-01-14, 06:51 AM (EST)
|
|
14. "RE: SCOTUS: People may hold and exercise their religious beliefs." |
LAST EDITED ON 07-01-14 AT 06:53 AM (EST)Nice to meet you, Speakup. Shall I now insult you by saying it's about time you did your own thinking instead of letting a group of bigots two to six thousand years dead do it for you? Or would you just take that as a compliment? How much of a fight would you like to have? Shall we both get ourselves banned here? Let's find out what the limits are before we go any farther, because you just crossed a line or two and I am more than capable of following. Personally, I'd ask you to explain the vasectomy/IUD divide, but I have no confidence that you'd answer it. Insult me for asking, yes. Answer, no. In short form as I see it: you think you won. And you're right. Where I feel you're failing to see reality: you seem to think you're the only one who won. There are more faiths than just yours, and every one of them gets to try applying this. Legally, they now get to make that attempt. You may feel you have the one true faith. So does everyone else. So tell me why a Calvinist can't say 'My god's limited mercy does not apply to you' and express it as a canceled policy. That's the faith, Newsome: a recognized one with a good deal of seniority. Your death was predetermined by that deity. Can't argue with the decision of the deity. You never seem to, so why should they? Also, about that 'illegal to inquire' question above. How does any prospective employee know what their coverage will be? How do you ask without breaking the law? What obligation does the corporation have to tell you? Or just keep going with your current track and slap me in the face again. That's part of the faith too, isn't it?
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
dabo 26397 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-01-14, 09:03 AM (EST)
|
|
15. "RE: SCOTUS: People may hold and exercise their religious beliefs." |
On the other hand, artificial people now have human rights. Next thing you know they'll want to be getting married.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
newsomewayne 9275 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-01-14, 09:41 PM (EST)
|
|
28. "RE: SCOTUS: People may hold and exercise their religious beliefs." |
You were insulted by that? Not my intention, so, I apologize. I did mean it as a rebuke, though. Posts 9, 10 and 12 were nothing but fear-mongering conjecture, tinged with masked hatred. You use allusion and misdirection to guide a debate away from its basis. It's tiresome.If you want to talk about this case, what it was really about, and the decision that was given, that's great. I'm all for it. But I'm not chasing down every dig and insult you can think of. If you want to discuss this case, stick to the facts. And if you do have a legitimate question where you want my opinion, just ask. But I'm not following your faith-baiting.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
dabo 26397 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-01-14, 10:59 PM (EST)
|
|
30. "RE: SCOTUS: People may hold and exercise their religious beliefs." |
The question I would ask, seriously, is why are you all in favor of this decision?I won't kid you, in my opinion it is a seriously flawed decision in several respects. I likened it above to the Dred Scot decision, and I really wasn't kidding. This decision allows a small group of people to impose their will on thousands of others, regardless of their beliefs. But, again, why do you favor this decision? Is it because you are politically opposed to the Affordable Healthcare Act and applaud anything that detracts from it? If so, very well, I disagree with that position but respect your right to hold to that position. Politics, then. Is it because you somehow believe this decision has anything whatsoever to do with religious freedom? In that case I say quit kidding yourself, it has absolutely nothing to do with religious freedom. Religious freedom is about all our rights to hold to our own religious beliefs, whatever they may be. Religious freedom is not about being able to impose religious beliefs on others, or at least it hasn't been since slavery was abolished. If your opposition is, instead, a pro-life stance against abortion, and you see this decision as empowering you in your position, I would agree with you that it does. But in a most preposterous and unacceptable manner. This decision does not adhere to any reasonable definition of what is abortion, not in any legal or scientific or medical sense at any rate. It adheres, rather, to a wholly free-form definition of abortion, supported somewhat by a religious freedom position, which contends simply that abortion is whatever any individual may determine for him or herself to regard as abortion. In terms of law, it is utterly insensible. In terms of the Dred Scot decision, it allows everyone to impose their will on everyone else -- provided they word it in the form of an opposition to abortion. I regard making left-hand turns through yellow lights to be a form of abortion, regardless of whether you agree you now and forever have to contend with this as a reality. If, on the other hand, or other other other whatever hand, you do regard corporations as actual people for other than civil court purposes and other minor legal distinctions, we will just have to agree to disagree; because I regard that position as moronic and though I would gladly hear arguments in favor of it I seriously doubt I would ever be compelled to agree.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
kingfish 17464 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-02-14, 10:07 AM (EST)
 |
|
32. "RE: SCOTUS: People may hold and exercise their religious beliefs." |
LAST EDITED ON 07-02-14 AT 10:24 AM (EST)Seriously. How can anybody living in the USA, under the constitution, remembering the abysmal historical world record that we have of failures of governments that impose religious values on all their citizens, accept and endorse this decision? Have we lost all reason? How can anybody back the imposition of anyone’s religious values on anyone else? Even in the present atmosphere of partisan politics where very few things aren’t in a gray area of one sort or another, this just seems so obviously black and white wrong. I am politically opposed to the steaming pile of cow flop that is the Affordable Care act. I am embarrassed by the worst administration since WWII, led by a president who picks and choses what laws to enforce and who makes up laws when he can’t get them passed legally, and whose decisions are almost 100% divisively partisan and self-promoting, and anything anti-Bush or anti-Republican. Patooie on him. Double patooie. He stinks. We can do better. His dog is OK. I like his dog. I am pro-choice. But I feel that the owners of closely held corporations have the right to be pro-life just as their employees have a choice to be pro-choice or pro-life. And I believe that their choices can be based on religious values, or whatever. But I do not believe that anyone should be able to impose their personal values on anyone else. I watch/read Fox. I watch/read MSNBC. I believe I recognize the bias of both. And I think that in at least one sense, in one very real sense, that corporations are people. They wouldn’t exist if they weren’t really and essentially the people that own them and work for them, and because they are essentially promoting political (as well as social, community, charity, etc.) positions that benefit the owners, employees, and to a lesser extent, customers, all of whom are people. Admittedly, in another sense, they are a legal artifice of ownership and responsibility. And with that all said, I cannot for the life of me see this decision as anything but supremely and fatally flawed.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
dabo 26397 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-02-14, 08:17 PM (EST)
|
|
38. "RE: SCOTUS: People may hold and exercise their religious beliefs." |
More interesting reading
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/supreme-court-hobby-lobby-decisionThis 5-4 ruling applies to about 90 percent of all American businesses, and 52 percent of America's workforce. .. all four of the contraceptive methods Hobby Lobby objects to —— do not prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg into the uterus .. Instead, these methods prevent fertilization. Yet this scientific determination did not guide the five justices... Alito concedes that Hobby Lobby's religious-based assertions are contradicted by science-based federal regulations .. The Greens say they have a moral objection to 4 of the 20 FDA-approved birth control methods covered by Obamacare. They believe these contraceptives cause abortions (even though they don't) .. The Supreme Court had to decide whether the RFRA applies not only to people but to private commercial enterprises, a determination no court has ever made.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
newsomewayne 9275 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-05-14, 01:14 AM (EST)
|
|
45. "RE: SCOTUS: People may hold and exercise their religious beliefs." |
Okay, sorry for the delay. Besides just regular life, I've been doing some reading on this that I wanted to finish before responding.
>I won't kid you, in my
>opinion it is a seriously
>flawed decision in several respects.
> I likened it above
>to the Dred Scot decision,
>and I really wasn't kidding.
In what way? Do you feel this decision enslaves people or do you think it just ranks up there with how supposedly horrible this decision is? Or something else? > This decision allows a
>small group of people to
>impose their will on thousands
>of others, regardless of their
>beliefs.
Despite my beliefs to the contrary, my company imposes its will on me all the time.
>
>But, again, why do you favor
>this decision?
>
>Is it because you are politically
>opposed to the Affordable Healthcare
>Act and applaud anything that
>detracts from it? If
>so, very well, I disagree
>with that position but respect
>your right to hold to
>that position. Politics, then. Well, I doubt it is any secret I feel Obamacare is horrible legislation, and that SCOTUS screwed up last year when they didn't strike it down. But honestly, that really didn't have much, if anything to do with this. Besides, I'm fairly certain this case wasn't about Obamacare specifically as much as it was about a regulation from it written by Sebelius, et. al.
>
>
>Is it because you somehow believe
>this decision has anything whatsoever
>to do with religious freedom?
> In that case I
>say quit kidding yourself, it
>has absolutely nothing to do
>with religious freedom. Religious
>freedom is about all our
>rights to hold to our
>own religious beliefs, whatever they
>may be. Religious freedom
>is not about being able
>to impose religious beliefs on
>others, or at least it
>hasn't been since slavery was
>abolished. Whole-heartedly disagree. Freedom of religion has three aspects - belief, exercise and exclusion. This is certainly not the first time the SC has ruled on what this means in practice. And, unsurprisingly, the court has ruled differently over the years on how much right individuals have to exercise their beliefs. From things I've read it seems that to limit this exercise, the state has to have a compelling reason to do so. And it has to show that what it does puts the least amount of burden possible on those who might be compromised by their religious beliefs. The third aspect of freedom of religion is that the state cannot compel persons to violate their belief system. Now, all rights have, for lack of a better word, limits. Especially when one right is in direct conflict with another. No right granted in the Constitution trumps all others. It's why Christian Scientist faithful are not legally entitled to just pray over their dying child without facing legal consequences for it. For the purposes of this post, we'll say that free health care is a right. It's not, it's a commodity. But I digress. The SC had to decide what right was more important - the Green's and the Mennonite's right to practice their religion or the state's desire to provide all inhabitants of America, excuse me, citizens with stolen-whoops, sorry again - free, all encompassing healthcare. As I understand it, the SC decided the state did not utilize a method that would least burden the beliefs of the plaintiffs.
> >If your opposition is, instead, a
>pro-life stance against abortion, and
>you see this decision as
>empowering you in your position,
>I would agree with you
>that it does. But
>in a most preposterous and
>unacceptable manner. This decision
>does not adhere to any
>reasonable definition of what is
>abortion, not in any legal
>or scientific or medical sense
>at any rate. It
>adheres, rather, to a wholly
>free-form definition of abortion, supported
>somewhat by a religious freedom
>position, which contends simply that
>abortion is whatever any individual
>may determine for him or
>herself to regard as abortion. I was kind of with you all the way up till the end. Not agreeing, all the way, just understanding you. I did some reading on this, the drugs and procedures in question. Honestly, I don't know what the arguments for/against were made in the case. So I can't speak about that. But where I think you go wrong, here, is saying it was decided on a free-form definition of abortion. I would say, if anything, it was a free-form definition of life that was used. As I understand it, these people believe life begins at fertilization/conception and that purposefully stopping that is abortion.
>
>
>In terms of law, it is
>utterly insensible. In terms
>of the Dred Scot decision,
>it allows everyone to impose
>their will on everyone else
>-- provided they word it
>in the form of an
>opposition to abortion. I
>regard making left-hand turns through
>yellow lights to be a
>form of abortion, regardless of
>whether you agree you now
>and forever have to contend
>with this as a reality. I'm sorry, but that is just absurd. At least on the surface it is. If you want to convince me otherwise, please expand, perhaps by comparing the winning opinions on these cases. >
>
>If, on the other hand, or
>other other other whatever hand,
>you do regard corporations as
>actual people for other than
>civil court purposes and other
>minor legal distinctions, we will
>just have to agree to
>disagree; because I regard that
>position as moronic and though
>I would gladly hear arguments
>in favor of it I
>seriously doubt I would ever
>be compelled to agree. I regard a corporation owned by one or a few people who hold similar beliefs as an extension of those people that can be operated in a manner that abides by and reflects the values of those people, within the confines of the law. Five people agreed with me.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
cahaya 19256 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-05-14, 03:00 AM (EST)
 |
|
46. "RE: SCOTUS: People may hold and exercise their religious beliefs." |
... these people believe life begins at fertilization/conception and that purposefully stopping that is abortion.First of all, let's get the English definitions straight: abor·tion
noun \ə-ˈbȯr-shən\ : a medical procedure used to end a pregnancy and cause the death of the fetus.
Light and life by smokeysmom
Preventing a pregnancy where this is no life yet and ending a pregnancy where there is already life are two entirely different things.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
starshine 100 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Blistex Spokesperson"
|
07-05-14, 02:42 PM (EST)
|
|
48. "RE: SCOTUS: People may hold and exercise their religious beliefs." |
Much as I may disagree with these people they would argue that preventing a pregnancy and ending a pregnancy are the same thing, both prevent a life from existing.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
|
|
Estee 56922 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-02-14, 04:43 PM (EST)
|
|
36. "RE: SCOTUS: People may hold and exercise their religious beliefs." |
LAST EDITED ON 07-02-14 AT 04:47 PM (EST)#9 is how I feel you're seeing this: that it doesn't touch you, so why worry? #10 comes from a discussion I saw elsewhere regarding about this topic. (Yes, I'm cheating on you.) In it, the idea came up that we may be on the verge of a new profession: the corporate faith counselor. We have tax counselors and the like traveling around showing businesses how to save the maximum amount of money for their fields. So why not advise on which faith to corporately adopt in order to avoid the largest number of costly laws? And from that stemmed the catch-all of Predestination=Not My Fault, Calvinism. Think about it. #12 is also from that other discussion: one of the participants mentioned it. I would go on, but I'm pretty sure I hit pointless on this in the initial post. You feel this is a good thing. I don't. Never the twain will meet. So all you need to do is get me into your business and then decide your faith means I get to spent a lifetime there working for no pay, without quitting. Of course, I get to do the same, but I think you'll have a little more trouble... Oh -- one last thing. You made one miscall. I am not masking my hatred for this SCOTUS ruling. I hate it. Outright. I would ram it through a log chipper if I could. I think it's going to do a lot of damage. But for so many others, all that injury is what their deity wants. Kind of makes eternal torture feel like the moral choice.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
dabo 26397 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-01-14, 11:01 PM (EST)
|
|
31. "RE: Hobby Hypocrites" |
Yes, actually, I am invested in some myself. Takes some paying attention to keep invested in the things you favor, some steering, it's work.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
newsomewayne 9275 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-01-14, 04:38 PM (EST)
|
|
27. "RE: SCOTUS: Corporations may hold and enforce their religious beliefs on others." |
It's probably a good thing he didn't say five and 3/5ths people.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
Estee 56922 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-02-14, 04:51 PM (EST)
|
|
37. "RE: SCOTUS: Corporations may hold and enforce their religious beliefs on others." |
But then he could have just said Founding Fathers and made it all okay.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
cahaya 19256 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"
|
07-04-14, 03:27 AM (EST)
|
|
43. "RE: Here we go." |
But I think there's going to be a major shortage of lions to go around.
|
|
Remove |
Alert |
Edit |
Reply |
Reply With Quote | Top |
| |
|
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
|
|
Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
